40 ZOOLOGY OF THE VOYAGE OF THE BEAGLE. 
presence of two nasal spines; but it differs in the roughness of the skin (that 
species being described as smooth), and in the greater inequality of the dorsal fin. 
Perhaps it may be the same as the species brought from the coast of Chili by 
Mr. Cuming, and briefly noticed by Mr. Bennett in the “ Proceedings of the 
Zoological Society ” (1832, p. 5.), but which this last gentleman did not venture 
to describe as new, from the circumstance of its general agreement with the 
A. Peruvianus. The principal deviation in Mr. Cuming’s fish from the species 
just mentioned is stated to have occurred in the number of the fin-rays; those of 
the spinous portion of the dorsal fin being seventeen (one less than in the 
A. Peruvianus), while of the soft rays of the anal there were ten (three more than 
in the species referred to). Mr. Darwin’s fish agrees with Mr. Cuming’s in the 
number of the dorsal spines, but not in that of the soft rays of the anal, which is 
eight, being one more than in the A. Peruvianus and two less than in Mr. 
Cuming’s ; and it is observable that both the specimens obtained by Mr. Darwin 
agree in this particular. Mr. Bennett has not noticed any of the other characters 
of Mr. Cuming’s fish.* 
One of the most distinguishing peculiarities in the species here described is 
the existence of vomerine teeth, which though extremely minute are quite 
sensible to the touch. As these teeth are denied by Cuvier to the whole genus, 
we have here another instance, similar to that of the Aspidophorus Chiloensis 
already mentioned, of the slight value of the character which their presence or 
absence affords. Possibly, however, they may disappear in the adult state. 
Both Mr. Darwin’s specimens are small, neither equalling two inches; and if 
they are immature, which is probably the case, some of the other characters 
mentioned in the description, perhaps even the hispidity of the skin, may result 
from this circumstance. They must therefore be received with caution until 
larger specimens shall have been obtained. 
* Since the above was printed, Mr. Waterhouse has been kind enough to show me in the museum of the 
Zoological Society the specimen which he believes to be the one procured by Mr. Cuming. Unless the 
characters are very much altered by age, it is decidedly distinct from the A. Aispidus above described. The 
general form indeed is the same; but the skin is perfectly smooth, marked with vertical strie ; the granulated 
ridges on the head are less prominent, and the superciliary ridges without spines. The fin-ray formula is not 
quite as stated by Mr. Bennett, who appears, in his computation, to have mistaken the last dorsal spine for one 
of the soft rays of that fin, and also to have oyer-estimated the number of soft rays in the anal. The formula 
is really 18/12; A. 1/9, &c. Ihave no doubt of Mr. Cuming’s fish being the true A. Perurianus ; whilst 
the one here characterized as new is probably the young of a nearly allied species. Mr. Cuming’s specimen is 
six and a half inches long. 
It may be advantageous to science to mention here, though not immediately connected with the present 
inquiry, that another species of Agriopus in the museum of the Zoological Society, which was seen by M. Valen- 
ciennes during his visit to this country, and referred by him in the “ Histoire des Poissons” to the A. verrucosus, 
proves not to be that species, but the A. spinifer of Dr. Smith, recently described by him for the first time in 
his “ Illustrations of the Zoology of South Africa.” 
