the Bihj and the Poor-Cod. 527 



disappearing in the adult, as seen in Serranus, Lutianus^ &c. 

 I omit further reference to the great difference in tlie propor- 

 tions of the depth of the body and length of the head in the 

 two forms, as I)r. Mcintosh suggests such may be due to age. 

 But can any fish in our waters closely allied to the weevers 

 be pointed out wherein soft rays invariably increase in number 

 with age or size of the specimen in both the dorsal and anal 

 fins, forming a fair reason for supposing that such may be the 

 case in the weevers ? 



As regards the larger fish being taken in deeper water, this 

 of itself is no criterion as to specific difference. The eggs or 

 very young fry of forms in which the ova float, as in the 

 weever, as well as the larger examples of the fish, will most 

 probably be found in deep water, as in other marine fishes ; 

 but I have personally seen the greater weever brought on shore 

 in a seine-net and trawled by a shrimper: 



Ogilvy asserts that the greater weever is not found in 

 Ireland, where the lesser weever is not unfrequent, and several 

 naturalists have believed that this latter form is more partial 

 to the colder north tlian is the former. How Dr. M'Intosh can 

 advance that "a perusal of Dr. Giinther's accurate and careful 

 remarks on the two forms above mentioned strengthens the 

 views just expressed," I fail to perceive. Dr. Gunther 

 observed, " On the British coasts two species occur — T. draco , 

 the greater weever, attaining to a length of 12 inches, and T. 

 vi'pera^ the lesser weever, which grows only to half that size " 

 (^ Introduction to the Study of Fishes,' p. 464). 



Prof. M'Intosh (following Winther, 1879) considered " that 

 what has been described as the poor- or power-cod {Gaaiis 

 minutus) by several authors is only the young of the bib." 

 Continuing that " alarge seriesfrom various parts of the British 

 seas leaves little doubt as to the identity of the two forms. It 

 would appear that the confusion in regard to this species has 

 partly arisen from an examination of preserved specimens." 



Dr. Gunther remarked of the bib, G, luscus, that " the 

 ribs of this species are proportionately longer and stronger than 

 in the " G. mt'mitus, &c. Personally I sliould have liked to 

 have examined more specimens; as it was, I compared examples 

 of the two forms of the same length, and found that in the G. 

 mmutus the anal fin did not commence nearly so far forwards 

 as in the bib, in which latter the vent was placed below the 

 anterior portion of the first dorsal fin, whereas in the G. 

 minutus it was much further back, being below its last rays. 

 But if these variations are not persistent, and the two forms 

 pass insensibly one into the other, the differences may be 

 sexual or accidental, and a detailed account of the intermediate 

 links would be desirable, until the appearance of which I will 

 defer my further criticism. 



