162 Mr. J. Y. Johnson on rare and little- known 



scales on the vertical fins. Now, certain fishes which I have 

 obtained agree so nearly both with Valenciennes's description 

 and figure of A. viridis, and with Mr. Lowe's description of 

 Crenilabrus trutta, that there can be no doubt that both these 

 naturalists referred to the same species, and that the fishes now 

 before me also belong to that species. Mr. Lowe's specific name, 

 being the older, must be retained. I may remark, however, that 

 the vertical bands on the sides, spoken of by Mr. Lowe, are not 

 to be clearly made out on my specimens, although there possibly 

 are some slight indications of them ; neither did I see more than 

 one spot on the anal fin, whereas he speaks of two or three ; 

 whilst I perceive five fuscous blotches on the dorsal fin, whereas 

 he found only four. But these differences are of little con- 

 sequence, since he met with a variety " unicolor viridis subim- 

 maculata ;" and hence it is evident that the colouring is subject 

 to considerable variation. The fin-formula of A. viridis agrees 

 (with the trifling exception of 13 being substituted for 14 in the 

 number of the pectoral rays) both with Mr. Lowe's account of 

 Crenilabrus trutta and with the rays observed on my specimens. 

 It also agrees with that observed in another Canarian fish, of 

 which Valenciennes made a new species under the name of 

 Acantholabrus romerus, saving that he assigns 15 rays to the 

 pectoral fin. The only ground, apparently, for separating the 

 fish from Crenilabrus trutta was that the four spots on the dorsal 

 fin and the two or three spots on the anal fin were not seen on 

 his fish — a difference of very little importance, if this were so in 

 the living fish. Since the French naturalist only saw stuffed 

 skins, the spots might have easily disappeared, if there origin- 

 ally. It may therefore be concluded, I think, that these two 

 Canarian fishes and Mr. Lowe's Madeiran fish really belong to 

 the same species. 



On referring to the description given by Valenciennes of a 

 supposed third Canarian species {Acantholabrus romeritus), it will 

 be seen that the only differences pointed out between it and the 

 other two are in the tint, the number of the teeth, and in the 

 numbers of the spinous and soft rays of the dorsal and anal fins 

 (viz. 16 spinous and 9 soft rays in the former, in place of 17 

 and 8, and in the latter 4 spinous and 9 soft rays, in place of 

 5 and 8). The differences in the colouring and the dentition 

 are too trivial to deserve consideration ; and it may be strongly 

 suspected, considering the general close resemblance, that, in 

 regard to the fin-rays of the single specimen observed, one of 

 the dorsal and one of the anal spines had been abnormally con- 

 verted into soft rays. 



A description of the species, drawn up from the three speci- 

 cimens that have been obtained by me (in January, February, 



