442 On ilie British Weevers, the Bih, and the Poor-Cod. 



margin of the operculum. The diversity in the pigment is 

 easily explicable on other grounds than those of specific dis- 

 tinctness. Further, the fact that the sm.oller form is fertile 

 at an early age is not altogether a reliable basis of separation. 

 Besides, I have not been so fortunate as to secure the young 

 forms of the so-called greater weever, while the young of the 

 lesser weever have been familiar to me for many years — from 

 an inch in length upwards. 



The smaller form (lesser weever) frequents extensive sandy 

 reaches, such as those off the west sands, St, Andrews, where 

 it delights to bury itself in the sand, and is tossed on shore 

 after severe storms at all stages. The larger form (greater 

 v/eever), on the other hand, is found as a rule, especially if 

 well grown, in deeper water. In this habit, however, it would 

 only coincide with the larger forms of certain other species 

 of fishes. 



A perusal of Dr. Gunther's accurate and careful remarks * 

 on the two forms above mentioned strengthens the view just 

 expressed. 



The weevers are well known to fishermen from the wounds 

 inflicted by their opercular spines. A most interesting 

 account of the structure of the parts and the result of an 

 experiment with tlie living form are given by Prof. Allman 

 in a former number of this journal f. 



In the standard works on fishes in our country, and in the 

 literature of fishes generally since the time of Linnajus, the 

 bib or whiting-pout and the poor- or power-cod are mentioned 

 in close proximity. The latter is described as diminutive in 

 size, seldom exceeding 6 or 7 inches in length, and less deep 

 than the former when of the same length. The barbel on the 

 chin is shorter, and there are minor differences in the length 

 of the fin-rays and in the position of the anal fin. 



In the most recent work on British fishes, viz. that of Mr. 

 Francis Day, it would appear that the elaborate descriptions 

 in regard to eyes, teeth, fins, scales, lateral line, and colours 

 are not always satisfactory, since they fail to show tlie rela- 

 tionship existing between the adult and young stages appa- 

 rently of the same species. The experienced author, indeed, 

 observes, under the head of the Poor-Cod : — " Winther places 

 G. luscus as a variety of this fish ; but G. minutus is not nearly 

 so deep in the body, while its vent is placed below the last 

 rays of the first dorsal fin, and the free portion of its tail is 

 more extended. I have not had an opportunity of investi- 

 gating both sexes of tliese two species of fish." This remark 



* Catalogue of Fishes (Brit. JNIus.), ii. pp. 233 and 23G (1860). 

 t Ann. & Mag. Nat. Hist. ser. 1, vol. vi. pp. 101-165 (1841). 



