478 Survey of Fishing-Grounds, West Coast of Ireland, 1890-1891. 



Fam.— PLEURONECTIDJB. 



Genus Hippoglossus, Cuvier. 



Hippoglossus vulgaris, Fleming. The Halibut. (Deep-sea.) 



Onl}^ three specimens were obtained during the Survey, the depth in no case 

 exceeding 35 fathoms. The species, however, is by no means confined to littoral 

 waters, since it appears that, on the fishing grounds of Newfoundland, the greater 

 number of fish are now taken at a depth of from 100 to 200 fathoms. Halibut 

 are also regularly taken on the Faroe grounds at depths exceeding 100 fathoms. 



Genus Hippoglossoides, Gottsche. 



Hippoglossoides platessoides, Fabricius. The Long Rough Dab. (Deep-sea.) 



Hippoglossoides platessoides, . Collett, " Norw. N. Atlant. Exp. Fish.," p. 144. 

 „ ,, . GooDE, "Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus.," iii., p. 471. 



„ „ . Holt, "Trans. Roy. Dub. Soc," N.S., v., p. 57. 



,, limandoides, . Holt, " Sci. Proc. Roy. Dub. Soc," vii., pp. 319, 



403, 442. 



The younger stages of this species have been dealt with by one of us at 

 considerable length in a former number of these '' Transactions," while details 

 as to locality and depth of all specimens captured are given in the " Scientific 

 Proceedings" (Nos. xxviii. and xxix.). The Papers last referred to having been 

 originally prepared for the Annual Report to the Council of the Society, it was 

 thought to be for the general convenience to make use of the nomenclature 

 followed by Day in his " Fishes of Great Britain." Accordingly the species now 

 under consideration appears therein under the name of IT. limandoides, although 

 Collett had already shown most clearly that the Palseactic and European variety 

 {H. limandoides, Bloch et auct. 2^lur.) is not specifically distinct from the Nearctic 

 type beai-ing the older name of H. 2)latessoides. 



Without entering at length into the very elaborate and convincing discussion 

 given by the Norwegian author, we may point ouA that two specimens in the 

 Survey collection fully bear out his contention that the Nearctic and Palaearctic 

 forms are not to be distinguished by their proportions. The distinction most 

 apparent in the diagnoses of earlier writers is found in the relative height of the 

 body, which is usually somewhat the greater in the Nearctic examples. In the 

 same haul of the trawl, however, in Donegal Bay, we obtained two specimens of 



