ON THE APPENDICES GENITALES (CI.ASPERS) IN THE GREENLAND SHARK. 



loped condition in the other (and it turns out to be very few) male specimens, mentioned as 

 examined by naturalists. 



In this circumstance, in connection with the interpretations b}- Sir W. Turner of the crenital appa- 

 ratus in both sexes, is most likely to be sought the reason of the idea that the Greenland Shark 

 only should be possessed of rudimentary copulatory appendages. This supposition has been 

 set forth by Professor Liitken in the communication on the propagation of tlie Greenland Shark, cited 

 on p. 3 note 2. In tliis paper Sir W. Turner's description of the reproductor}' organs both of the male 

 and female is reported with the following remark: sOf what use the copulatory members of the male 

 were was not evident; but perhaps these organs are in this species of Sharks rudimentary structures 

 without any importance? At all events I know no descriptions giving them a size like that found 

 in the Spin\- Dog-fish or the Basking Shark*. I must confirm the latter sentence myself. It was to 

 be expected beforehand that, if the male of this species had really copulatory appendages of proportions 

 relatively as those of other species, so prominent formations would scarcely have escaped the notice, 

 but would probably have been mentioned by one or more of the many earlier authors, who have 

 written of the North and the Northern nature, in which writings the Greenland Shark and the 

 catching of it bear a part, and of whom more, I suppose, have had the opportunity of knowing the 

 animal by autopsy. 



However, I have in vain sought in authors as: Egede, Cranz, O. Fabricius, Scores by, 

 Eggert Olafsen, Mohr, Olaus Olavius, Faber, Pontoppidan, Strom, Leem, Rosted, 

 Landt, and others; I find nothing concerning this point. Only Gunnerus') mentions these organs, 

 which we have reason to take to be the external characteristics of the male , but in undeveloped 

 condition. G nun ems had 3 male specimens, the largest not exceeding 5 ells (Danish) in length, 

 and the smallest being a'/z ell; the figure shows the appendages quite small, shorter than the fin- 

 membrane; besides it is evident from his description, that he himself justh- thinks his specimens to 

 be young animals. 



Later authors too do not mention appendages in more developed condition; thev are on the 

 whole (as far as I know) only mentioned by Yarrell and by Malm. Yarrell-) says of a specimen 

 described by Valenciennes'): vThe fish was a male; the \-entral fins and sexual appendages or 

 claspers very small . \'alenciennes himself, however, says nothing of the sex, and does not at all 

 mention the appendages; he only says that the ventrals are small, so that possibly the cited remark 

 of Yarrell has it origin from a misreading. Malm 4) mentions two males, which he correctly declares 

 to be young, respective!}- of a length of 1850'"™ and 1880™™; the length of the .hjelpgenitalias was in 

 both 2^°"":, they did not reach the end of the ventral fin. Only in one place I have found a statement 

 suggesting, that the authors in question have had the opportunity of seeing the appendages of the 

 Greenland Shark in a more developed state, viz. in Alii Her and HenleS). They divide the genus 

 Scyiiiinis in two subgenera: i) Scyuiiiiis (to which Sc. licltia and S. brasilieiisis), characterized among 



") 1. c. p. 330 seq., pi. X, fig. i, Lit. a. PI. XI, fig. i, Litt. a, a. 



2) History of British Fishes, 3d eii, 2, p. 527. 



3) Nouv. Ann. du Museum, i, p. 455, pi. 20. 



4) Goteborgs och Bohuslans Fauna. 1877. p. 627, 629. 



5) Systematische Beschreibung der Plagiostomen. 1S41. p. 91, 93. 



