Zoological Society. 503 
Shaw (Zool. iv. 198) observes: ‘It appears from a print published 
in the year 1798, that a specimen of this fish (Gymnetrus Hawkenit) 
was thrown on the coast of Cornwall in the month of February in the 
same year. Its length was 8 feet 6 inches, its breadth in the widest 
part 102 inches, and its thickness 23 inches. The tail in this speci- 
men was wanting ; the colour the same as in the specimen (of Gymne- 
trus Hawkenii) figured by Dr. Bloch.” 
I have no doubt, as Valenciennes suspected (see Hist. Poiss. x. 
375), from comparing these accounts with the drawing in the edition 
of Pennant above quoted, and with Russell’s and Shaw’s notices, that 
they are from that authority, and that the two dates in the notes, and 
the length mentioned by Dr. Shaw, are mistakes of the copyist. I have 
not been able to find the engraving mentioned by Shaw, which was 
doubtless made from this drawing, though there is a slight variation 
in each of the items of the measurements given by the latter author. 
Could he have considered this drawing as a published print? The 
writing is so beautifully executed that he might be deceived unless 
he examined it very carefully. 
Mr. Couch, in his paper on Cornish fishes, Linn. Trans. xiv. 77, 
informs us, under 
** Ceil Conin.—This fish was drawn on shore in a net at Newlin 
(Newlyn) in this country in February 1791. The extremity of the 
tail was wanting ; the length of what remained was 83 feet, the depth 
103 inches, thickness 23 inches, weight 40 lbs. A coloured drawing 
of this fish is in the possession of W. Rashleigh, Esq., F.L.S., of 
Menabilly.” . 
Mr. Couch has seen this drawing. A copy reduced to one-fourth 
its size is given by Mr. Yarrell in his excellent work on British Fishes, 
vol. ii. p. 221. 
I have great doubt if the fish mentioned by Mr. Couch is not also 
the same specimen as the one described as caught on 23rd of February 
1788, as it is found in the same place, is the same size and weight, 
&c., and that the date is a mistake. The addition of the two ventral 
fins was probably a fancy of the artist, like the addition of the tail, 
the drawing of the fish sent to Sir Joseph Banks being without these 
fanciful embellishments. 
It_has been supposed, because the copy of the drawing given by — 
Mr. Yarrell is very like the figure of Gymnetrus Hawkenii in Bloch’s 
Hist. Ich. xii. t. 433, that the drawing of the Cornish fish was the 
origin of Bloch’s figure ; but it is to be observed that Mr. Hawken 
sent a specimen as well as a drawing of the fish he received from Goa ; 
that his specimen was only 24 feet long, and the Cornish specimen 
82 feet. See Cuvier, Hist. Poissons, x. 374. 
Dr. Shaw (Zool. iv. 197) informs us that the drawing of Gymnetrus 
Hawkenii was communicated by ‘‘ J. Hawkins, Esq. ;”’ and he added, 
**T am assured by Mr. Hawkins that this is really the case (the tail 
being added by the draughtsman), the specimen from which the 
drawing was taken having been defective in that part.” 
From this examination I conclude that these accounts are all from 
the specimen and figure in Pennant. 
