Mr. F. Day on Orcyims thjnnus [L.). 401 



mucous surface of the roof of the mouth has, in addition to 

 the rasp-like teeth on the palatines, numerous hardened 

 streaks from thin ossifications of the region " {I. c. p. 329). 

 Consequently it would appear that it did not possess teeth on 

 the vomer. 



I now come to the questions raised respecting ray figure, 

 which, as I stated, was from a stuffed example in the national 

 collection, and for stuffed fishes I think those of the tunny 

 will bear comparison with others thus preserved but belonging 

 to different genera ; and, while giving this opinion, I may add 

 that I have often seen bonitos and their allies when freshly 

 taken from tropical seas. Premising that I figured the 

 tunny as closely as I was able from the stuffed specimen 

 Avithout indulging in any " fanciful representations," in order 

 to make it more closely resemble what I thought it might 

 look like were it not stuffed, I have re-examined the British- 

 Museum tunny, and with the following results, as any one 

 can verify for himself should he desire to do so. Large 

 specimens in spirit are not in that institution, for thus pre- 

 serving them would be rather a useless waste of money, 

 which remarks are still further applicable to collections be- 

 longing to private individuals. 



" The first dorsal fin again is stated to have weak spines. 

 . . . the powerful nature of the first spine is conspicuous " 

 {I. c. p. 328) . I have shown it nearly twice as wide at its 

 base as the second spine, and that is what exists in the 

 British-Museum specimens, and to it the term '''' 'powerfuV is 

 here quite misapplied. The bonito's is much stronger th^n 

 that of the tunny ; but even it cannot be termed "powerful," 

 for if so how could the first dorsal spines of such fishes as 

 some of the Siluroids be described ? In fact I still think that 

 the generic definition of " weak spines " to tlie tunny fishes 

 as compared with those of other genera is literally correct. 



" The premaxillary and maxillary region is too long in 

 the figures of Cuvier and Valenciennes, as well as in Day's " 

 (?. c. p. 328). In the largest British example from Wey- 

 mouth (7 feet 4t\ inches from the snout to the base of the tail- 

 fin) the distance from the eye to the end of the snout is 2f in 

 the length of the head, in a second stuffed specimen 3 feet 

 1 inch long (computed as above) the length of the snout is 

 just half of the entire length of the head to the postero- 

 inferior end of the opercle, where it joins the subopercle j con- 

 sequently the length of this portion of the head agrees with 

 that shown in Cuvier and Valenciennes's work, and also with 

 my own figure, but not with Dr. Mcintosh's specimen. The 

 eye is said to be " too large" in my figure j here, again, it 



