BY J. DOUGLAS OGILBY. 9 
caudal lobe acutely, lower bluntly pointed, the latter 
31 in the length of the body: two upper pectoral rays 
simple ; Ist. ray } of the 2nd, and 3 of the 4th and longest 
ray; 2nd. ray 3 of the 3rd, and 3 of the 4th ray; outer branch 
of 3rd. ray extending to midway between the tips of the 2nd, 
and of its own inner branch; 3rd. ray of the 4th, which is 
4 of the length of the body and reaches to the base of the 
caudal : ventral inserted midway between the root of the 
caudal and the gill-opening ; 3rd. ray longest, not quite 
reaching to the rudimentary caudal rays and 4 of the body- 
length. Above glossy brown, each of the scales with a 
lighter border; sides of head and body golden brown ; 
belly silvery : all the fins pale yellowish brown (fulvus, 
tawny ; pes, foot). 
Type in the Australian Museum, Sydney. 
Total length 310 millimeters. 
Seas round Lord Howe Island. 
The specimen from which the above description was 
drawn up has been the subject of more than one examina- 
tion and identification. Originally referred by me to the 
Middle American Exonautes dowit, Waite, during his visit 
to Lord Howe Island in December, 1902, having obtained 
several examples through the agency of certain complaisant 
nesting gannets, re-examined this specimen and decided 
that it belonged to the Atlantic® EH. rondeletii; from 
this species, however, it differs among other characters, 
in its more slender form, longer snout, shorter anal fin 
(as compared with the dorsal), longer pectorals, posterior 
insertion, much greater length and uniform coloration 
of the ventrals. H. fulvipes is in fact the Western Pacific 
representative of the Atlantic EH. rondeletw, while it is 
possible that the Eastern Pacific form, as exemplified by 
the Acapulco specimen, may differ specifically from both, 
No other known species of Hxonautes, other than H. easiliens 
and E. rondeletti, can possibly be confounded with 
* T am aware that Liitken records this species from Acapulco, a sea- 
port on the Pacific Coast of Mexico, but Liitken himself was in considerable 
doubt as to whether he was not confusing two or more species under the 
specific name rondeletii. ‘‘This species is subject to some variation, or else, 
as Dr. Liitken suggests, we are uncertain as to the number of real species 
that group themselves around its type.” (Jordan & Evermann, Fish. N. 
& Mid. Amer., pt. i, p. 733, footnote*). 
