a new Lophioid Fish from Oreenland. 343 



To facilitate comj^arison with similar forms wliicli may 

 hereafter be described, I will here collect in one place most of 

 the measurements scattered through the preceding description. 

 To give more seems to me to be superfluous and of little use : 

 in animals of this nature no importance can be ascribed to 

 small discordances in comparative measurements ; and greater 

 ones will always be sufficiently prominent by a comparison 

 with the figures. 



Dimensiones speciminis descript{. 



millims. 



Longitudo corporis totius ab apice rostri usque ad extremi- 



tatem pinnae caudaKs 205 



Longitudo corporis totius ab apice rostri usque ad originem 



pinnse caudalis 160 



Altitudo maxima 105 



Latitudo capitis inter spinas frontales 45 



„ „ ,, sinus oris 55 



Longitudo maxillarum 54 



Spinae frontales ab apice rostri distant 55 



„ „ a siuibus oris „ 52 



Aperturae branchialis altitudo 30 



Eadii frontalis longitudo 38 



„ dorsalis „ 50 



Pinnae caudalis „ 45 



EXPLICATIO ICONUM. 



Fig. 1 (p. 332). Caput Oneirodis Eschrichtii, antice visum ; magnitudine 



tres partes verae eificiente pictum. 

 Fig. 2 (p. 334). Clava radii frontalis cum tuberculis at tentaculis, supeme 



et ex latere visa ; magnitudine aucta picta. 

 Plate IX. Oneirodes Eschrichtii; magnitudo iconis tres partes piscis 



ipsius; pinna pectoralis deest; clava radii frontalis separatim 



picta, magnitudine aucta. 



Postscript. — After the printing of this little memoir was 

 commenced, I had, by Dr. Giinther's kindness, during a short 

 residence in London, the opportunity of seeing and examining 

 the original specimen of Melanocetus Johnsonii. Whilst this 

 examination confirmed my conviction of its generic distinct- 

 ness from Oneirodes.^ and strengthened my confidence in the 

 perfect correctness of Giinther's description and the figure 

 accompanying it, my suspicion increased with regard to the 

 right interpretation of the groups of teeth in the upper part of 

 the mouth, which Giinther had described as palatal and ptery- 

 goidal teeth. It seemed to me far more probable that it was 

 the superior pharyngeal bone, which otherwise must be sup- 



