136 Miscellaneous. 
On the finding of a second Ribbonfish. 
Yo the Editors of the Annals and Magazine of Natural History. 
GreNTLEMEN,—Having heard in May last that another Ribbonfish, 
or Gymnetrus, had been found near Whitby, and being in that town 
on Monday last, I inquired for it in the museum, and I was shown 
the specimen by an assistant there. 
This fish is labelled “ Ribbond fish cast up at Whitby, April 23, 
1866,” but its specific name is not given. It was cast upon the 
sands near Whitby, and was discovered by some schoolboys. Being 
unwieldy, and 10 feet long, they could not convey it with them; so 
they cleverly cut it into five slices, and then carried the slices sepa- 
rately. A man who stuffs birds near the museum has preserved it 
very well, and sewn together the five slices. The tail is broken ; 
there are no appendages about the head ; and the long dorsal fin is a 
good deal injured, as well as the numerous rays. From want of time, 
and the glass case being so close to the back of the fish, I could not 
wait to count the number of the rays. This specimen may be, like 
that cast up at Seaton Snook on the Ist or 2nd of last March, the 
Gymnetrus Banksii, which was 14 feet 7 inches in length; though I 
am inclined to think it is the ‘‘ king of the herrings,’’ as one of the 
species is called. 
The distance from Seaton Snook to Whitby Sands is some thirty 
miles along the Yorkshire coast, to the south-east. 
I am, Gentlemen, 
Yours truly, 
Joun Hoca. 
Norton House, Stockton-on-Tees, 
July 6, 1866. 
A few words on the Mammoth*, in connexion with the Engravings 
recently found in Périgord and supposed to represent this Ani- 
mal. By H. Branpr. 
Professor Brandt, referring to the account given by M. Lartet of 
a plate of fossil ivory from Périgord bearing incisions which appeared 
to represent an elephant with a long mane, and to a second note by 
M. Vibraye on the reproduction in reindeer-horn of a head supposed 
to be that of the Mammoth, remarks that these discoveries were 
particularly interesting to him, as he had been for years accumu- 
lating materials towards a monograph of the Mammoth. He states 
that as long as ten years ago, in his memoir on the distribution of 
the Tiger, he expressed the opinion that Elephas primigenius, 
Rhinoceros tichorhinus, Cervus euryceros, Bos primigenius, Bos 
urus, Bos moschatus, Cervus Alces, Elaphus, and Tarandus, &c., 
belonged, with man, to a single contemporary fauna, that in Asia 
these large animals were pursued by the tiger at the most distant 
periods, and that the remainder was in part destroyed by man. 
* According to a note appended by Milne-Edwards to the title of this 
paper, the proper spelling of the name of this animal is “ Mamont.” 
