2G 



present species can be so separated fioni those two. The range for the dorsal fin-rays 

 in the above specimens is 68-74. Dr. Giintlier in his Catalogue gives 63-73, Day's 

 "British Fishes" gives 65-74: the total ranrre recorded therefore is 63 to 74. Similarlv 

 for the anal fin-rays the rang? in the above table is 52-58; GUnther gives 53-57; Day 

 55-58, therefore the range in my table is the greatest recorded. Day gives the number 

 of caudal fin-rays as 15, evidently not counting the smaller external rays. GUnther 

 gives the scales of the lateral line as 85, Day as 85 to 90 ; the range in my specimens 

 is 87-104. The number of vertebrge is here again very constant, and forms a good 

 specific character, though it must be remembered that it is doubtful if it would serve 

 to distinguish this species from all other known species of Solea. The proportion of 

 breadth to length resembles that in vulgaris, and is therefore less than in lascaris, 

 while the proportion of head to length is izsually less than in the other two species, but 

 does not form a marked specific character. 



Fins. — The dorsal commences slightly farther forwards than in the two preceding 

 species, the base of the first ray being actually nearer to the mouth than is the con- 

 tinuation of the longitudinal diameter of the dorsal eye. The right i)ectoral is much 

 larger than the left, but much smaller than the pectoral of the preceding species : its 

 length is contained 3| to 4| times in the length of the head. The left pectoral is a 

 mere insignificant filament, never more than ^ in. long, sometimes much smaller : it 

 may contain one, two, or even three rudimentary fin-rays. 



Eyes. — The dorsal is only ^rd its own longitudinal diameter in front of the ventral, 

 and f rds of the same lengtli from the edge of the snout. 



Xostrih.—T\ie two on the right side are in the same position as in the preceding 

 species, but the posterior is smaller, and the anterior a more elongated tube than in 

 tln'ni. Tlie two on the left side are situated as in «S. vulgaris, but are smaller and less 

 conspicuous. 



Mouth, is much less curved downwards than in the two preceding species, the anterior 

 end of the cleft being slightly more dorsal than the angle of the cleft, while in the two 

 previous species it is considerably more ventral : the anterior end of the cleft is in fact 

 on the same longitudinal level as the lower border of the ventral eye, while in the 

 other two species it is considerably ventral to that level. The snout is more truncated 

 than in the other two species, the apex scarcely projecting beyond tlie anterior end of 

 the mouth-cleft. Two patches of rod-like teeth, as in the other species, cm the left side. 

 The villi of the under side of the snout form short fringes at the edge of somewhat 

 broad membranous folds of the skin, which have a reticulate arrangement enclosing 

 quadrangular depressions of considerable size. This conspicuous reticulate arrange- 

 inent of fringed membranes forms a distinct contrast to the closely crowded filaments 

 in tlie two previous species (PI. VII, 2). 



The scales are absolutely broader than in any of the other British species, the 

 breadth being almost equal to the length : they are- also much larger in proportion to 

 the size of the body than in either of the two preceding species, as is evident from 



