a new Lophioid Fish from Greenland. 335 



This frontal ray is followed, about the middle of the back, 

 by a conical (second) dorsal ray, about 50 millims. in length, 

 somewhat depressed from before backwards, tolerably thick, 

 and entirely soft (which is entirely deficient in Melanocetus^ 

 whilst in Ceratias there is a corresponding structure). Al- 

 though it seems to be entirely soft and flaccid, and deprived 

 of all rigidity, it is supported internally by a thin bony ray ; 

 when laid forward, it meets the clavate head of the frontal 

 ray when this is laid down in its bed the excavation in the 

 frontal surface ; posteriorly it reaches the base of the dorsal 

 Jin. The fleshy base of the latter rises somewhat over the rest 

 of the dorsal line ; the fin is composed of six thick, conical, 

 soft, and rather short rays, undivided and unjointed as in Ce- 

 ratiaSj and terminating in a fine point [Melanocetus has four- 

 teen such rays, while Ceratias has only four). On the other 

 liand, the anal Jin, as in the two genera just mentioned, has 

 four rays of the same nature, and the caudal Jin eight, of which 

 the four middle ones are deeply cleft*. The caudal fin is not 

 remarkable for its length (as in Ceratias) ; its length (45 mil- 

 lims.) is equal to the breadth of the head between the frontal 

 spines, less than the length of the soft (second) dorsal ray &c. 



When, for example, we read in Heckel and Kner's ' Siisswassei-fische der 

 ostreichischen Monarchie' (1858, p, 311) of the Silure (Silurus fflanis), 

 " In this the play of its harbels is of advantage to it, as it makes use of 

 them to capture fishes which snap at them," we might easily suppose 

 that the authors had before them some definite information of this kind, 

 perhaps from fishermen of the Danube. 



The difference between the frontal ray in Oneirodes and Ceratias is 

 probably less than it seems at the first glance. It is due in part to the 

 fact that the part which lies below the articulation, and which in Onei- 

 rodes has a horizontal position, is nearly hidden in its sheath of skin, 

 while in Ceratias it is free, erect, and consequently attached higher up 

 on the head (above the eyes), and at the same time elongated in quite an 

 extraordinary degree, partly to the clavate head being but little deve- 

 loped and therefore described as an " elongate ovate lobe of skin ;" its 

 upper part here has also a lighter colour ; and in the original specimen it 

 is plain enough that there have been more tentacular filaments than the 

 one that Kroyer figures at the apex of the cutaneous lobe (the second one 

 at its base is certainly due, as Kroyer himself states, only to an injury). 

 I have likewise seen traces of pigmented tubercles, and have in general 

 reason to think that when a specimen is obtained in which this part is 

 weU preserved, it will appear to have no small resemblance in its whole 

 structure to the club in Oneirodes. With regard to the analogy which, 

 notwithstanding much difference, exists between the frontal ray in Onei- 

 rodes and the frontal crest in Himantolophus grcenlandicm, I may refer to 

 the older Reinhardt's description in vol. vii. of the ' Videnskabernes 8el- 

 skabs Skrifter,' 4th series, p. 139, pi. 4. In Melanocetus the frontal ray 

 has no joint at the base, and its terminal flap is destitute of all traces of 

 the tentacular filaments &p. which adorn the corresponding part in 

 Oneirodes. 



* In Mehuiorctiis the six intermediate rnvs are cleft. 



