[21] MATERIALS FOR A HISTORY OF THE SWORD-FISHES. 309 
10. HISTIOPHORUS GLADIUS (Broussonet) Lacép. 
_ Scomber gladius, BROUSSONET, Mém. Acad. Sci. 1786, p. 454, pliisx: 
~ > Scomber gladius, BLocH, Ichthyology, pl. ecexly: Hist. Nat. Poiss. 
> Istiophorus gladius, LACHPEDE, ‘iii, pp. 374-5’, 2d ed. 8°, 1819, p. 542, 
Histiophorus gladius, GUNTHER, 1. ¢. p. 513. ahem Il. ¢. 
> Xiphias velifer, SCHNEIDER, |. c. p. 93. 
Histiophorus indicus, Cuv. & VAL. 1. ¢.p. 293, pl. COxkIs 
This species, described first by Broussonet from specimens brought 
from the Indies—“la mer des Indes ”—by Banks, has usually been con- 
sidered, perhaps rightly, by later authors as identical with the American 
form. 
11. HisrloPHORUS AMERICANUS, Cuv. & Val. 
Guebucu brasiliensibus, MARCGRAVE, Hist. Brasil. 1648. 
> Scomber gladius, BLocH, 1. c. 
> Histiophorus gladius, authors. 
Histiophorus americanus, Cuv. & VAL. 1. ¢. p. 303. 
Skeponopodus guebucu, NARDO, Isis, Heft.iv, p. 416. 
The history of this species has already been detailed under paragraph 
11. lLiitken follows the general lead in identifying this with H. gladius. 
12. HISTIOPHORUS ORIENTALIS, Temminck & Schlegel. 
Histiophorus orientalis, TemM. & SCHLEG. Fauna Japonca, Pisces, 1842, p. 103, 
pl. lv (specimen 7 feet long, from Japan). —GUNTHER, op. cit. p. 514.— 
LUTKEN, Vid. Med. Nat. ree 1875, p. 1. pl. i (specimen 7 feet 1} inches 
long, from Singapore). 
In his first paper on the Sword-fishes Liitken seemed inclined to con- 
sider. this a distinct species, though doubtful. In “ Spolia Atlantica iY 
he speaks of two species of Histiophorus, but I am unable to decide 
whether it is this or H. gracilirostris which he regards as well separated 
from H. gladius. Speaking of the occurrence of this fish in the seas of 
Japan, Temminck and Schlegel remark that its Japanese name is ‘ He- 
rivo”; that it is occasionally taken in autumn on the southwest coast of 
J Rian: during the progress of the tunny fishery, and that its flesh is 
much esteemed. ° 
13. HISTIOPHORUS IMMACULATUS, Riippell. 
Histiophorus immaculatus, RUPPELL, Proc. Zool. Soe. iii, 1835, p. 187 (abstract): 
Trans. Zool. Soe. ii, p. 71, pl. xv: “N. W. Fische, p. 47, taf. xi, fig. 3.”— 
GinTHER, |. c.—LUTKEN, ll. e.—Day, Fish. India, 1876, p. 199. 
Riippell’s specimen came from Djetta on the Red Sea, where the Arabs 
caught it in a net. He regards it as rare because the Arabs had no 
common uame for it. The specimen is preserved in the museum at 
Frankfort, and, if I rightly understand Dr. Liitken, is 18 inches long. 
Dr. Liitken H neaitatintely pronounces it the young of H. gladius or 
H. orientalis, considering it as being slightly older than the one figured 
by Cuvier and Valenciennes as I. pulchellus. Day mentions a specimen 
of this species in the Madras Museum 5 feet 9 inches long. This, to be 
consistent with Liitken’s theory, must be regarded as a specimen in 
which the colors have disappeared in drying. 
