some doubtful British Fishes. 41 



fer), while more recently Kaup*, Richardson f, and GiintherJ 

 have transferred it to the genus Gijmnelis, the first originally 

 under the name of Cepolophis §. It remains to examine into 

 the grounds for such approximations. 



It is not probable that a fish whose dorsal fin arrested the at- 

 tention of Montagu on account of its being so " erect " could have 

 been a Malacopterygian ; and this character, as well as the dis- 

 tinctness of all the rays, the development of the caudal, whose 

 rays are longer than those of the dorsal and anal, the relations 

 of the various parts, and even the gill-membranes inflated be- 

 neath, renders it evident that the fish in question could have been 

 in nowise related to either Ophidium, Fierasfer, or Gymnelis, all 

 of which are Malacopterygians with caudal rays shortest and 

 not developed as a distinct fin. Its affinities are therefore to be 

 sought for in another direction. The general form, the "erect" 

 dorsal fin, and the number of rays agree with Murcenoides gun- 

 nellus. The colour is in that species sometimes simply " purplish 

 brown," the dorsal spots becoming obsolete; and in a single 

 specimen from England, in the Smithsonian collection, several 

 anal spots are barely discernible ||. The failure to observe the 

 ventrals was shared with Schonevelde, Schelhammer, Liunseus, 

 &c. ; and we are more prepared for their non-observance by 

 Montagu when we remember his peculiar views concerning the 

 ventral fins^f. Objections may be urged against this identifica- 

 tion — that Montagu would have recognized the Murcenoides 

 gunnellus, that the proportions represented in his figure are not 

 precisely equivalent to those of that species, and that the critical 

 Cuvier and all succeeding naturalists have failed to notice the 



* Cat. Ap. Fishes, (1856) p. 156. 



t Yarrell, Brit. Fishes, (Richardson's ed.) i. p. 79 (fide Giinther). 



X Cat. Fishes, iv. (1862) p. 325. 



§ Arch, fur Nat. (1856) i. p. 97. 



|| These light dots are accidental, none being developed in other speci- 

 mens from England, Denmark, and the German Ocean. 



il The reference, by Dr. Shaw, of Vandellius lusit aniens (= Lepidopus 

 caudatus) to the thoracic order " caused the obscurity of Vandellius lusi- 

 t aniens, as no one, could have expected to have found an Apodal fish placed 

 in that division. How that naturalist could have fallen into such an error 

 I cannot conceive, unless he considered the pair of ventral scales as rudi- 

 ments of those fins, or what is commonly attached to the base of the ventral 

 fins of some fishes, as may be observed in many Spari." " I am aware that 

 it has been contended that these abdominal scales are lamellated ventral 

 fins. If so, we have yet to learn the definition of a fin in the modern re- 

 volution of science. Those who contend for the continuance of Vandellius 

 of Shaw or for the Lepidope of Risso being continued in the Thoracic order 

 must also constitute a new order for many fishes that have such lamellated 

 appendages, independent of two ventral fins. But I cannot admit of a 

 simple corneous scale, destitute of motion, being a ventral fin." — Montagu, 

 in Mem. Wern. Soc. ii. (1818) pp.432, 433. 



