31 



This species was first recognised as disliuct in Britain Ijy raniell, wliu described it in 

 tlie "Magazine of Zoology and Botany," Vol. I, 1837, under the name Monochirus 

 rtdnutus. He believed that it had never been described before, and therefore "ave it 

 the name minutus. pLcing it in Cuvier's sub-genus JiJonochirus. He gives a figure of 

 it, and mentions as its specific character that every sixth or seventh ray of the dorsal 

 and ventral fin is black ; he obtained his specimens at Brixham from the travi^lers. 

 W. Thompson in the "Annals of Natural History," Vol. II, 1839, identified Parnell's 

 species minutus with that mentioned by Cuvier in the " Ivegne Animal," under the name 

 Linguatida, which is the Solea parva sine lingu/a of Eondelet. Cuvier defines the 

 Monochires as those specimens of Solea in which the pectorals are minute, the left 

 being either very minute or altogether wanting. 



I have consulted a French translation of Ivondelet's original Latin work ; this trans- 

 lation is dated "Lion " (Lyons), 1558. The names here given are La petite Sole, and 

 Solea lingula, and though no characteristic specific features are mentioned in the 

 description, the figure given agrees very well in shape with specimens of the present 

 species ; this figure shows the left side of the fish. 



Yarrell introduced a figure and description of Parnell's AlonochiruH minutus into his 

 supplement to the first edition of his " British Fishes," not having been acquainted with 

 the species when he published the book. 



Parnell's species was described as distinct by Dr. Gunther in the British Museum 

 Catalogue, under the name Solea minuta from two specimens, one, a dried skin, from 

 Yarrell's collection, the other, stuffed and dried, from Brixham. 



Moreau, in his " Poissons de la France," 1881, in describing Microchirus luteys, the 

 Solea lutea of Bqnaparte, suggests by means of a note of interrogation that Solea minuta 

 is a synonym of that species, and Francis Day, in his " Fishes of Gfeat Britain and 

 Ireland," states without reservation that the two species are identical. 



Dr. Glinther in his Catalogue describes one specimen of Bonaparte's Solea lutea. He 

 has informed me that he now considers the two species to be identical, and after 

 examination of English specimens and Mediterranean specimens of lutea at tlie British 

 Museum, and comparing them with the various descriptions, I h^ve no doubt myself 

 that lutea and minuta are the same species. 



This spepies was first described by Eissq, in his "Ichthyologie de Kice," under the name 

 PleuronerAes luteus, and his description is sufficiently accurate for its identification. 

 The same author, in his " Histoire Naturel de I'Europe Meridionale," placed the species in 

 the genus Rhoinhus, calling it Rhombus luteus. Bonaparte, in Ins " Faipa Italica," gives 

 an excellent description, and two very good coloured figures. He describes the colour 

 of the body, apart from the fins, as a uniform golden yellow without spots, Ijut in 

 Mediterranean specimens in the British Museum I found the markings which I have 

 described above in English specimens. 



