LUDRICK-BLACKFISH, 51 
of what he regarded as the two species (Blackfish and 
Ludrick), and in describing the “ Lucdrick,” said:— 
“This species is not nearly so plentiful as is the preceding 
(Blackfish), from the dark variety of which it may usually 
be distinguished by its generaliy lighter colors, and from the 
lighter varietv by the absence of bands, which, if present at 
any stage of growth, do not appear to be ever persistent, as 
in its congener, which it resembles in all respects in habits, 
&c., and with which it is confounded by the fishermen.” 
As far as coloration is concerned, my experience does 
not agree with this statement, as I find the bars to be just 
as often present in the females (that is, the ‘ Ludrick’”’ form) 
as in the males. Certainly the males appear to be in the 
majority. 
At the time that I wrote my “ Fishes of Australia” 
(1906), I had my doubts as to the existence of the “ Ludrick ” 
as a separate species, and consequently did not mention it 
at all. 
So far as I am aware, this is the first record of the occur- 
rence of secondary sexual characteristics (at least as regards 
the teeth) in any member of the family KyShosid@—to which 
the Blackfish belongs. 
In the light of my researches, “ Ludrick,” as a separate 
species, must now be erased from the list of Australian fishes. 
Rock Blackfish (Girel/a clevata). 
PuaTe XX. 
This is a species which is but little known, but which, 
I have good reason for believing, is quite common. It is 
somewhat similar in form to the common Blackfish, but may 
be at once separated from that fish by the much heavier 
build, the more elevated body, and the “ bolder ’’ nose— 
this being essentially more like that of the Drummer, with 
which species the Rock Blackfish is sometimes confused by 
the fishermen. The scales, too, are larger than those of the 
Blackfish. 
