1894. PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MVSEUM. 459 



The full diagnosis given above was furnished by our friend Dr. Franz 

 Hildgendorf, cnstos of the zoological collections in the lloyal Museum 

 of Natural History, Berlin, who also gives the following notes ou the 

 jiresent condition of the type : 



The original Bloch specimen (Cat. gen. No. 1409) is still in existence (our musenm 

 possesses in addition to this only a single specimen of Notacanthns, Notac. sexs2)iHis), 

 but it is in a very unsatisfactory condition. It was perhaps injured in transporta- 

 tion from Paris. The Jar has not been opened for more than thirty year's. Very 

 likely Bloch received it in a ]t()or state of pi'eservation — a large cavity in the belly 

 between the pectorals and ventrals, a dilapidated left cheek, injured eyeballs, intes- 

 tines wanting, etc. In addition to this, there are other defects of a later date, such 

 as the loss of the caudal, tlu> tip ot tlie snout, the maceration of the frontal bones. 

 The gill arch is ahnost entirely gone ; tht^ intestines altogether. The frontal bone is 

 crushed and the first vertebra is disconnected. There is a long gap in the dorsal fin. 



The actual length is now S2 cm. ; in addition to this sliould be added at the most 

 1 cm. for the snout and | cm. for the caudal fin. This makes its former length about 

 85 cm. (Bloch says 2^ feet. This would be according to the Rhenish, i. e., Prussian, 

 measure only 78i cm. Perhaps Bloch had a longer foot, or he gave only an approxi- 

 mate measurement.) As we have no other specimen which we might have con- 

 founded with that of Bloch, and ours still bears the label (apparently in Troscliel's 

 handwriting), '' Notacantliiis nasiis, Iceland, Bloch," I have no doubt that No. 1409 

 is the tjpe specimen. Nor can there have been another in Paris. 



How much of the end of the caudal is missing is difficult to say. The point of the 

 fracture is hard and the fin bones are soft. If Valenciennes's account is actuirate, the 

 caudal _/(« only is missing, and one or two rays of this are still attached. If Bloch's 

 description is correct, there were 149 — (13, 8, or 10 f spines for the caudal), =126-128 

 rays in the anal; conse(inently a caudal end, with at least 10 rays, in addition to the 

 caudal fin, was lost, and the fish would have been somewhat longer than 85 cm. I 

 presume there was an oversight on Bloch's part. 



The material now classed by authors under the name of If. nasus is 

 the following: (1) A specimen described by Fabricius in 1798 under 

 the generic name of (Jamp!/l<>(lo)i,ohti\hni(l in 1794 from Greenland; (2) 

 Bloch's type in the Berlin Museum, believed by him to come from the 

 West Indies, described under the names N. chemnitzu ( ?), N. nasus, 

 and Aeanthonotus nasus; (3) a specimen, obtained off Iceland by La 

 Recherche and brought by Gaiinard to the Paris Museum, figured in 

 the Regne Animal, and said to have been figured also in the Voyage 

 in vScandinavia: this, as has already been stated, is possibly a typical 

 N. nasus; (4) a specimen, 3 feet long, obtained in South Greenland, and 

 brought in 1877 to the Copenhagen Museum. This also is jmssibly 

 not a characteristic representative of the species. 



Both Canestrini and (xiglioli enumerate Kotacanthns nasus among 

 Mediterranean fishes, but entirely without warrant. 



NOTACANTIIUS ANALIS, Gill. 



Nnidcanthus rtJirt/is. Gill, Proc. IT. S. Nat. Mus., vi, 1838, p. 255.— Gunther, Chal- 

 lenger Report, XXII, p. 248, note. — Vaillant, Voy., Travailleur and Talisman, 

 p. 318, et seq. — .Joudan and Gilbert, Cat. Fish. N. Amer., 1885, p. 58. 



A Hotacanthus, with its body much higher over ventrals than over 

 pectorals, and cora])aratively short. Its height equal to one-third of 

 the distance from the vent to the tip of the snout, and nearly equal to 



