\ ' REPORT ON THE DEEP-SEA FISHES. 261 



from the information wLicli is available at present, and which may be tabulated 

 thus : — 



Length of jaws. Length of body. Proportion. 



In the smallest specimen, . . . ' 13| lines. 36 lines. nearly 1 : 3. 



In Johnson's specimen, .... 2^ inches. 8A inches. nearly 1 : 3J. 



In Mitchill's specimen, .... 3 inches. U inches. nearly 1 : 5. 



In Harwood's specimen,! _ _ _ 20 inches. about 1 : 7. 



3. Mitchill describes the white lines along the dorsal and anal fins, whilst Harwood 

 says nothing about them. Johnson's specimen, which without any doubt is identical 

 with Harwood's fish, has the dorsal lines very distinct, and traces of the anal lines 

 barely visible ; it, therefore, agrees in this singular point with Mitchill's fish. 



4. The length of the tail would be naturally subject to great variation, its posterior 

 I portion being as delicate as the most slender fin-filament ; and specimens in which this 



part is mutilated must be as common as those in which it is intact ; probably it is 

 readily reproduced. For this reason I cannot attach any weight to the various state- 

 ments with regard to the extent to which the dorsal and anal fins are continued towards 

 the extremity of the tail. The longest and perhaps the most perfect tail was observed 

 in Mitchill's specimen, in which it was four times the length of the body, with the 

 dorsal and anal fins continued to its extremity. In the three other specimens the tail is 

 respectively only one and a half times, two and a half times, and thrice as long as the 

 body, and every trace of the dorsal and anal is lost at a greater or lesser distance from 

 its extremity. 



5. Mr. Johnson lays particular stress upon a series of free filaments apparently 

 starting from the skin of the back, and described by Mitchill as accompanying the 

 dorsal fin for a considerable distance ; they were about one inch in length and some 

 fifty in number. These filaments are certainly not to be seen in the Madeiran fish, but 

 were present in Harwood's specimen, as he mentions them, and some are clearly shown 

 in his figure. As Mr. Johnson nevertheless justly considers his fish to be identical with 

 Harwood's, he should not have relied upon this character as indicating the specific dis- 

 tinctness of his and Mitchill's specimens. 



6. All four specimens agree in the dorsal fin commencing at a considerable distance 

 behind the head, and at a short distance in front of the vent. 



These considerations led me some twenty -four years ago to the conclusion that there 

 is no sufficient evidence of these specimens being representatives of distinct species ; 

 and as no fresh light has been thrown upon this question by the recent discoveries of 

 either the French or the North American surveying vessels, I see no reason to abandon 

 the view then expressed. 



1 Harwood does not give the measurements ; the proportion has been ascertained from the figure, allowing for the 

 I'oreshoilening of the curved jaws. 



