EDIBLE FISHES OF NEW SOUTH WALES. 99 



Geogrophical distribution. — Cosmopolitan. All the TmcTiinidce are of 

 small size, and, with the exception of Bathydraco, are littoral forms, some of 

 which enter rivers. Almost all are slow and inactive in their movements, 

 and keep entirely to the bottom. This, however, is not invariably the case ; 

 as instances to the contrary our whitings (Sillar/o) may be taken, while the 

 European Trachi?ius viper a will rise to a white fly after sunset (see Proc. Roy. 

 Dublin Soc. 1885, p. 512.) 



Several fossil forms have been described from tertiary deposits. 



Genus I.— SILLAGO. 



SiUaf/o, Cuvier, Eegne Anim. ; Cuv & Yal. Hist. Nat. Poiss. iii. p. 398, 1829 

 Sillaffinodes, G-ill, Proc. Ac. Nat. Sc. Philad. 1861, p. 50-t. 

 Sillaf/inopsis, Gill, Proc. Ac. Nat. Sc. Philad. 1861, p. 505. 



Branchiostegals six : pseudobranchiee present. Body elongate and some- 

 what cylindrical. Head conical, with the muciferous system well developed. 

 Cleft of mouth small : the upper jaw rather the longer. Eyes lateral 

 directed slightly upwards. Gill-openings wide. Preopercle serrated or 

 crenulated : opercle terminating in a spinous point. Villiform teeth in the 

 jaws, with an outer subcorneal series, and on the vomer : palatine bones 

 edentulous. Two dorsal fins, the first with nine to twelve spines : the second 

 more developed, similar to the anal : ventrais thoracic : the lower pectoral 

 rays branched. Scales moderate or small, ctenoid. Lateral line not 

 continued on to the caudal fin. Airbladder simple. Pyloric appendages in 

 small number. 



Geographical distribution. — Erom the Red Sea, the east coast of Africa, 

 and the Seychelles, tlirough all the seas of India and Malaysia, to those of 

 Australia and Tasmania. 



The great confusion, which exists in the works of Australian authors, as 

 to the correct names to which the two species mentioned below are refer- 

 able, has made it a task of exceptional difficulty to select from the writings 

 of these authors the true species to which they allude, and thus present an 

 amended, and we trust more accurate, synonymy to our readers. That many 

 of these errors have been caused by the confused account given in the 

 Report of the Royal Commission, pp. 16. 17, is undoubted, but in justice to 

 the gentlemen who drew up that Report it is but fair to say that they were 

 probably misled by the statement made by Giinther (Catal. Eish. ii. p. 245, 

 foot-note) that the Astrolabe figure shows twenty one rays, whereas it really 

 shows two spines and nineteen rays, and as one of the spines is as often 

 absent as present, it necessarily follows that, so far as this character is con- 

 cerned, the fish in question is intermediate between S. maculata and *S'. ciliata. 

 Johnston also throws some additional light on the subject by the statement 

 that in the Tasmanian form the " sides are faintly marked with yellowish 

 bars, which become obsolete towards the belly," and, it might be added, 

 probably disappear in specimens preserved in alcohol. Until, therefore, a 

 careful comparison of the Tasmanian fish with undoubted specimens of our 

 two species has been made, it seems to us unadvisable to consider S. bassensis 

 as a proved synonym of S. maculata. The Melbourne Whiting, S. punctata^ 

 occasionally occurs as far north as Port Jackson. 



