a new Lophioid Fish from Oreenland. 331 



withstanding their resemblance in many essential features, 

 are very sharply marked ; nay, I consider that it will even be 

 admitted that they are great enough for the establishment of 

 a generic distinction. Before I pass to the detailed indication 

 of these differences, I may state that the specimen before us, 

 unfortunately, wants both the pectoral fins, but in other re- 

 spects is well preserved. As, of course, I could not sacrifice 

 the single existing specimen for the purpose of examining the 

 bony structures, I cannot say any thing about them, except 

 that in the solidity of its skeleton Oneirodes seems to be 

 similar to Lophius : in this respect, however, it shares the fate 

 of the two genera between which it will have to take its place, 

 namely Mdanocetus and Cerafms, in which the bony struc- 

 tures are likewise entirely unknown*. If in the following 

 description I chiefly compare the new form with Giinther's 

 Melanocetus (so far as this can be done without directly laying 

 them side by side), this is a simple consequence of their near 

 affinity and great resemblance in many respects. 



The form of the body in Oneirodes (Plate IX.) may be most 

 correctly described as compressed, although by no means to 

 the same degree as in Ceratias : and it is probable that this 

 compression may seem greater in the dead than it would be in 

 the living fish ; for in an animal of a consistency so soft and 

 flaccid and molluscoid, the collapse consequent upon death 

 may certainly exert a sensible influence in this direction. 

 Although the belly is very flaccid and pendent, and perhaps 

 in the living body might have been more strongly distended 

 than is now the case, it is still far from forming such a large 

 pendent sac as m Melanocetus ; and although the head (reckoned 

 to the branchial clefts) does not perhaps make up a smaller 

 part of the whole animal than in Melanocetus^ the mouth is 

 certainly much less in proportion to the size of the whole ani- 

 mal, as is best seen from the fact that the length of the jaw is 

 not contained quite 3 times (namely 2*7) in the total length 

 in M. Johnsonii^ but nearly 4 (3*8) times in 0. Eschrichtii. 

 In the next place, the mouth is not perpendicular (as in Mela- 

 nocetus and Ceratias), but horizontal (as in most other fishes). 

 Seen from the side, the outline of the fish nearly forms a 

 tolerably regular oval, somewhat pointed in front (in the 

 facial part), but with the snout itself truncated, and posteriorly 

 (at the root of the tail) somewhat produced. Seen from be- 



• Since Kroyer published his description of this fish, the museum has 

 come into possession of some material towards the knowledge of its bony 

 structure — namely, of two skeletons broken into their constituent parts, 

 the separate bones. I hope to work up this material at some other 

 opportunity. 



