FISHES.-MCCULLOCH. 



23 



ings on the fins also differ in intensity in a large series of 

 specimens. 



C. nignpinnis was, until recently, known only from the 

 deeper waters of New South Wales. Waite has recorded it 

 from New Zealand, however, and it must now be added to 

 the Victorian and Tasmanian lists, about one hundred and 

 fifty specimens having been preserved from the following 

 localities : — 



Oyster Bay, Tasmania, 40-60 fathoms. 



Off the east coast of Flinders Island, Bass Strait, 40 

 fathoms. 



Between Port Stephens and Newcastle, New South Wales, 

 22-60 fathoms. 



Family MACRORHAMPHOSID^. 



Genus Macrorhamphosus, Lacepede. 



Macrorhamphosus elevatus, Waite. 



Bellows Fish. 



(Fig. 8.) 



Macrorhamphosus scolopax, var. elevatus, Waite, Mem. 



Austr. Mus., iv., 1899, p. 59, pi. vii., fig. i. 

 Macrorhamphosus gallinago, Ogilby, Proc. Roy. Soc. Qld., 

 xxi., 1908, p. 6. 

 In the Report of the "Thetis" Expedition, Waite noted 

 certain characters in which his specimens differed from the 

 published descriptions of M. scolopax, but in consideration of 

 the variations to which members of this genus are subject, he 

 regarded the Australian representative as but a variety of 

 that species. Having compared specimens of each, I 

 am able to point out that there are well marked specific 

 differences between them. Examples of M. elevatus of the 

 same size as others of M. scolopax are much deeper and have 

 shorter and thicker snouts. The variations in the lengths of 

 the spines in different specimens of M. scolopax have been 

 tabulated by Giinther,! and I find similar though less striking 

 variations in the Australian species, but it is always longer 

 and usually much longer than the snout in M. elevatus, 

 whereas it appears to be usually if not always shorter in M. 

 scolopax. 



The large series of specimens available to me shows that 

 the relative depth of the body increases considerably with 

 age, but it is also clear that the exact form of the body differs 

 even in specimens of the same length. Under these circum- 

 stances I have no hesitation in regarding M. gallinago, 

 Ogilbv, as identical with M. elevatus, especially as there are 

 "Thetis" specimens which only differ from Ogilby's descrip- 



1 Gunther— Brit. Mus. Cat. Fish., iii.. 1861, p. 519. 



