taken off the coast of Northumberland. 13 
not actually inspect the fish. The copier of the figure sent to 
Bloch appears to Mr. Couch to have committed a great mistake 
by attempting to correct one which he supposed to have been 
made by the original draftsman, and the mistake consists prin- 
cipally in his having removed the two filaments in front of the 
dorsal fin to the situation of the ventral fin, thus making four 
filaments there instead of two. The same mistake appears to 
have been made with regard to the figure of the G. Hawkenii in 
Yarrell’s ‘ Fishes,’ that figure being, as Mr. Yarrell informs our 
friend Mr. Alder, incorrect as regards the number of ventral fila- 
ments, and the addition of the caudal fin. 
It appears therefore that the G. Hawkenii of Bloch is simply 
the fish caught at Newlyn incorrectly copied. In the notes ap- 
pended to the drawing sent us by Mr. Couch, and which are 
copied from the original, are merely mentioned the date of the 
capture as above and the measurements ; “its length without the 
tail, which it wanted, was 8} ft., its extreme breadth 10} in., and 
its thickness but 23 in.” | 
Its proportions therefore, allowing the tail to be somewhat 
deficient, come pretty near to those of our fish ; if the drawing 
however is to be relied on, it differs from ours in having only two 
filaments from the head with expanded feather-like extremities, 
and in having the ventral processes like those of the head. The 
fins also are crimson, and the body is marked all over by delicate 
roundish spots, and has a few obscure streaks obliquely placed 
below the lateral line. 
On the whole then we are inclined to believe the Cornish spe- 
cimen distinet from the G. Banksi, though, from the evident 
want of knowledge of the draftsman, much reliance cannot be 
placed on his details. 
Notwithstanding the rarity of the genus Gymnetrus, there is 
every reason to believe that specimens of it have been taken from 
time to time off the north-eastern coast of England. It appears 
by the ‘Annual Register’ that a fish was captured off Whitby, 
January 22, 1759, closely related to, if not identical with our spe- 
cies. The account, which may be interesting, we here reproduce. 
It is by Lionel Charlton, author of a ‘ History of Whitby ?:— 
“ Yesterday (Jan. 22) a very extraordinary fish was brought 
here by our fishermen, which broke into three pieces as they were 
hauling it into the coble. It was 11 ft. 4.1m. long, exclusive of the 
tail, had a head like a turbot or brat, was about a foot broad near 
its head, but not above 4 or 5 im. near the tail, and not anywhere 
more than 3 in. thick. The thickest part was its belly, and it 
gradually diminished away towards the back, which was sharp, 
and had all along it one continued fin from the head to the tail. It 
was covered with an infinite number of white scales which stuck to 
