24 



I will now shortly consider the question of the identification of the actua- specimens 

 catalogued by Giinther. In the single specimen he calls lascaiis I could count only 

 133 rows of scales, a number not much larger than the maximum 125 found by 

 me in the English form. As for its narrowness, it had been forced into a bottle nmch 

 loo narrow for it, and had in consequence been much compressed in breadth, so ihat 

 I think it is scarcely possible to be certain about its proportions. I do not consider 

 it toTse specifically distinct from the Solea lascaris of Bonaparte. 



Solea iiiipnr, Bennett, and Solea martjCiritifera, Giinther, must for tlie present be 

 considered distinct. They differ from English specimens of Solea lascaris in numerical 

 characters and also in colour. Both of them possess the marking characteristic of 

 vulgaris, that is to say, there are dark spots arranged as in vulgaris, not divided up 

 into small specks as in lascaris. Margaritifera is further distinguished by the con- 

 spicuousness of the small white spots in the type specimen in spirit. It may be found 

 in the future that Enghsli specimens of aS. lascaris exhibit a range of variation which 

 would include both these species. 



Moreau, in his "Poissons de la France," 1881, also identifies the Solea aurantiaca of 

 Giinther with the Solea lascaris of Eisso and Bonaparte, but he further includes the Solea 

 impar, Bennett, in the same species, although it is not clear from his description 

 whether he actually discovered by his own observation that the range of variation of 

 lascaris included the characters of impar. Francis Day, in his "Fishes of Great Britain 

 and Ireland," 1880-84, gives ihe same synonymy as Moreau. 



