THE FISHES OF THE .INGOLF» EXPEDITIONS. II 



looking much like the said species, but differring by the eyes not being particularly small and by 

 totally wanting the light-glands or (photospheres \ It can therefore apparently hardly be referred to the 

 same genus. The dorsal and anal fins are ver)- like those of C. i/iicrodon^ though with the difference 

 that the dorsal fin begins somewhat before the anal fin, while this on the other hand ends somewhat 

 farther back than the dorsal fin. Quite black. — A somewhat larger specimen (105""") from Station 9 

 — 64- 18' Lat. North and 27" Long. W. , 295 fathoms — is so badly preserved, that it gives onlv the 

 information that the eyes are not small and that both jaws are armed with small teeth directed 

 obliquely backwards, with a few longer ones in the foremost part of the lower jaw and the foremost 

 part of the palate or the intermaxillary. The nearer determination of this specimen must be reserved 

 for a future discovery. 



It seems evident that these specimens belong to species else unknown, but as the material is 

 so scant)- I shall limit myself to the short preliminary notes made above. 



The Notacanths. 



For a long time, only few specimens of the remarcable group, the Notacanf/iini, were known 

 of the type termed Caiiipylodon (■ Bugtetanden ") by Otto Fabricius (Skrifter af Naturhistorie 

 Selskabet, Vol. IV, fasc. II (1798), p. 22 — 38, pi. 9, fig. i), but inserted in the system as Notacanthus 

 Chcmnitzii Bl. (Abhandlungen der bohmischen Gesellschaft, 1787) or as Notacantluts iiasus Bl. (Aus- 

 landische Fische, IX, Allgemeine Naturgeschichte der Fische, XII, p. 113 (1793), pi. 431); Schneider, 

 <sSystema ichthyologise > (1801), pi. -j-j. The older Reinhardt designated it in his «Ichthyologiske 

 Bidrag» (Vidensk. Selsk. Skr. VII) p. 120 as Caiiipylodon Fabricii\ but now-a-days it is generally better 

 known as Notacantluis iiasus. These few specimens are i) The original Greenland specimen of 

 Fabricius, which, it must be deplored, in the course of time has been lost — I can not say at what 

 time. 2) The specimen received by Bloch from Chemnitz, probably from Iceland, though it was 

 stated to come «from India. It is described and figured in Cuvier's and Valenciennes's sHistoire 

 naturelle des poissons- VIII, p. 467, pi. 241. It is still preserved, as has been stated subsequently, in 

 the Berlin-Museum in a rather deteriorated condition. 3) A third large specimen was received at our 

 museum in 1871 from Greenland; it is mentioned and partly described by me in 1878 in the «Viden- 

 skabelige Meddelelser fra den naturhistoriske Forening>>. 4) The specimen obtained from Iceland for 

 the Museiim of Paris on the voyage of ; la Recherche' or rather as a consequence of this voyage 

 (Gaimard: Voyage en Islande et an Gronland, Poissons, pi. XI); Vail Ian t mentions this specimen 

 (Expeditions scientifiques p. 316) as being from <^Greenland', but that is not correct. It is figured twice 

 in the edition illustree dii > Regne animal > de Cuvier (Poissons pi- 55, fig- 2) and in the above quoted 

 itinerary by Gaimard. The question if these 4 arctic specimens should perhaps represent more 

 than a single species did not attract the attention for a long time to come. But now some Mediter- 

 ranean species were discovered: Not. Bona par tii Risso (Archiv fiir Naturgeschichte 1840, p. 376; 

 Mem. Acad. d. Sc. Torino, t. XVIII, p. 190) and iV. mcditcrraneus Fil. & Verany (Mem. Acad. d. Sc. 



