12 ON NEW GENERA AND SPECIES OF FISHES 
taking, for choice, the Vanikoro fish as the type, that being 
the first specimen referred to by its describer. 
In Professor Jordan’s recent great work* this fish 1s 
twice referred to as Hzonautes unicolor, but the above 
remarks in my opinion clearly prove that this view of its 
generic position is founded on error. In vol. I, p. 341, 
an Australian flying-fish is figured with the legend, “ Aus- 
tralian Flying-Fish, Hzonautes wunicolor (Valenciennes). 
Specimen from Tasman Sea, having parasitic lJernzan 
crustaceans, to which parasitic barnacles are attached 
(After Kellogg).”’ The second quotation, in vol. II, p. 213, 
is—“ The large Australian species Hxonautes wunicolor 
belongs to this group.” The undivided second pectoral 
ray in Kellogg’s figure certainly suggests that it belongs to 
the species here described, but the fin formula—D. 10, A. 12 
—together with the overlapping of the dorsal by the anal, 
and the extraordinary shape of the latter fin, points to quite 
a distinct fish; the origin of the anal being distinctly 
behind that of the dorsal it can not be Valenciennes’ Javan 
fish in which both fins commence on the same plane, and 
in which the second pectoral ray is divided (equals 
Exocetus oxycephalus Bleeker). Taking all things into 
consideration, I am inclined to believe that the figure is 
intended to represent Hxonautes fulvipes, which, however, 
can not strictly be called ‘“‘ the large Australian flying-fish,” 
since, so far as is known, the limit of its growth is about 
one foot, while Cypsilurus melanocercus, which inhabits 
much the same area, and which is the Pacific representative 
of Cypsilurus lineatus, attains a length of eighteen inches. 
Before concluding this article there is just one other 
point to be cleared up, and that is the identity of the Sydney 
flying-fish referred with a query by Kner to Hxocetus 
unicolor. There are several features even in his insufficient 
description which do not agree with the two specimens on 
which my diagnosis is founded. For instance, there is one 
ray less in the dorsal and anal fins, the smaller eye is more 
than the interorbital width, which is flat, and the pectorals 
are shorter ; while of course we know nothing of the pectoral 
formula in Kner’s fish. Should, however, Kner’s fish 
eventually prove to be identical with that described above, 
* A Guide to the Study of Fishes by David Starr Jordan, 1905. 
