FISH. 33 
genus from Aspidophorus, or at least considered as one of its subgenera. But in 
the present uncertain state of our knowledge with respect to the exact value of 
this character,* and from the general resemblance of the A. Chiloensis in all its 
principal characters to the other species of this genus,t I have not thought this 
step necessary. 
This species was taken by Mr. Darwin at Chiloe. There are two specimens 
in the collection. The second differs from the one above described, only in 
having one ray less in the first dorsal, and two more carinated scales in each of 
the dorsal ridges. Independently of its having vomerine and palatine teeth as 
above noticed, this species will not enter into any of Cuvier’s sections of the 
genus Aspidophorus, but combines in itself the characters of his first and third ; 
the dorsals being separated by nearly three scales, the jaws being very nearly 
equal, the rays of the first dorsal not stouter than those of the second, and the 
throat being bearded. 
PLATYCEPHALUS INOPS. Jen. 
P. capite longo, levi, ubique inermi, spinis dudbus ad angulum preoperculi brevissimis 
aqualibus exceptis ; oculis magnis, arcte propinquantibus : dorso et lateribus fuscis ; 
abdomine albido ; pinndé dorsali prima lituré magna irregulari nigro-fuscd postice 
maculata ; dorsali secundd, caudali, et pectoralibus, maculis fuscis parvis; anali et 
ventralibus fere omnino nigricantibus. 
B. 7; D. 8—12; A.12; C. 13, &c. P. 19; V. 1/5. 
Lone. unc. 16. 
Form.—Head very much depressed, and rather longer than in most of the species of this genus ; its 
length being nearly twice its own breadth, and nearly one-third of the entire length. Breadth 
of the body at the pectorals one-seventh of the entire length: depth at that point half the 
breadth. Snout rounded horizontally. Lower jaw longest. Gape reaching to beneath the 
* Cuvier seems to have attached much value to the character of teeth on the palate; but I agree with Dr. 
Richardson, (Faun, Bor. Am. Part iii. p. 19.) in considering it “ of little importance as a generic character in 
some families of fish.” And the author last mentioned notices an instance (exactly analogous to that of the 
Aspidophorus Chiloensis) in the Thymallus signifer, which, he says, “ resembles the common grayling very 
closely in its general form, but differs from it in having palatine teeth.” 
+ In its general characters it does not depart from the A.cataphractus of the British seas, anything like so 
much as the A. guadricornis, and A. monopterygius do. 
F 
