a new Lophioid Fish from Greenland. 341 



gronlandicus'^ ^ from a specimen wliicli was thrown upon the 

 shore near Godthaab, in 1833, after a violent storm, and, un- 

 fortunateljj much injured by crows and gulls : it was sent to 

 ^^^^ by Captain Holboll. The imperfection of the knowledge 

 of ^xQ species that could be gained from this incomplete spe- 

 c^^en was the reason that this distinguished ichthyologist did 

 not venture to refer this remarkable fish to a definite place in 

 the system ; but I think that, now that we have become ac- 

 9.%inted with Geratias, no one having read Reinhardt's de- 

 scription can doubt that we have in it to do with an apodal 

 -L'ophioid fish very nearly allied to the above-mentioned genus : 

 %ubt may rather arise whether Ceratias and Himantolophm 

 might not possibly be identical ; nay, one may perhaps be in- 

 clined to ask whether Ceratias may not be the female and 

 Himantolophus the male of the same fish, so that the remark- 

 able "frontal tuft" which gave rise to the latter name may 

 be a peculiarity of the male sex. Unfortunately, there is no- 

 thing of Himayitolophus preserved except the " frontal tuft," 

 and the unmistakable resemblance between the bony tubercles 

 which closely cover its skin and those occurring in Ceratias 

 would rather confirm than weaken the supposition of such a 

 connexion between them. An attentive reading of Reinhardt's 

 description, however, will remove this doubt ; for there appear 

 in it such essential differences that their union becomes im- 

 possible. Thus 1 shall indicate : — that the teeth in Himanto- 

 lophus formed several irregular rows — in Ceratias^ on the con- 

 trary, only one, except at the front of the mouth, where there 

 are two; that the pectoral fins contained 12 rays, in Ceratias 

 19 ; the dorsal fin 9 rays, in Ceratias 4 ,• and, finally, that the 

 spinous tubercles of the skin in the latter have at the utmost 

 a diameter of 2 lines, whilst in Himantolophus they are 10- 

 14 lines ! I can therefore by no means entertain any doubt 

 that it differs specifically and also generically from Ceratias^ 

 and that it forms a fourth member of the apodal Lophioid 

 group of the deep sea. As Kroyer did not find occasion to 

 refer to Himantolophus in the introduction to his description 

 of Ceratias f (perhaps because he entertained doubt as to their 



* " Ichtliyologiske Bidrag til den gronlandske Fauna," Vidensk. Sel- 

 skabs math.-naturv. Afhandl. 4de Esekke, vii. Deel, pp. 132-136. 



t Only to those who are not well acquainted with the subject will it 

 be necessary to indicate that the two new Norwegian Lophioids the exis- 

 tence of which Kroyer likewise made known in a note to this work 

 (p. 639), and which were subsequently described by Diiben and Koren 

 (Ichthyologiska Bidrag, Kongl. Svenska Vetensk. Akad. Handl. 1844, 

 pp. 63-79, pi. 3. figs. 1-5) as Lophim eurj/pterus and Chironectes arcticus, 

 may be regarded as struck out of the catalogue of species, the former as 

 probably tne young of L. piscatoriiis, the latter as identical with C.pictus 



