278 Notice of the Report on the Fishes of New York. 
tice, a beautiful scarlet colored membrane is perfectly gran 
extending from the posterior edge of the ventral spine. In five 
specimens preserved in spirits, this membrane is equally —— 
but colorless. 
Rhombus triacanthus, (p. 137.)—The original description of 
this species by Peck is very accurate. When speaking of the 
situation of the spines from which it derives its name, he says: 
“There is a small horizontal spine, pointing forwards, at the be-~ 
ginning of the dorsal fin; another at the beginning of the anal 
fin; and a third, arising from the sternum and pointing back- 
wards a little before the anus.” Dr. Dekay describing the fins, 
observes: “ Pectorals long and pointed. Anterior to this fin, is 
a broad acutely tipped. movable spine; and before this, a broad 
axe-shaped movable plate or spine (see figure) occupying the. 
place of the ventrals.” This is unintelligible to us. A very 
minute spine at the origin of the anal fin, pointing forwards, and 
an equally minute ‘spine situated in front of the anus, pointing 
kwards, are all we have ever been able to find upon the ab- 
domen, although the figure illustrating this species exhibits three 
spines in this situation. All the specimens we have examined 
have had the edge of the gill-covers smooth; the superior ante- 
rior angle of the operculum in the figure referted to, shows two" 
prominent sharp spines. 
Gunnellus mucronatus, (p. 153. ‘estiTugler the description of % 
Murenoides guttata, Yarrell, in his ‘ British Fishes,” observes: 
“A specimen of a spotted gunnel from America, for ears . wes 
indebted to the kindness of Mr. Audubon, proves on comp 
to be in every respect so similar to the British gunnel, that shen 
is little doubt it is the same species.” 2d. edit. Vol. I, p. 271. Dr. 
Dekay says of this species, “it resembles the G. vulgaris of Yar= 
rell, but from the above description is evidently distinct from that 
species.” I would only remark, that Yarrell, with specimens of 
both the foreign and native fishes before him, would be as likely 
to be correct as our countryman, who apne not intimate that er 
ever saw a foreign specimen. — 
Lophius Americanus, (p. 162. Had our author ‘told us a 
had compared our species with a specimen of the foreign fish 
Lophius piscatorius, and had he pointed out any differences which’ 
hoticed to exist during that examination, we should un- 
doubtedly have yielded our assent to his opinion ; but until some 
