532 



Mr. C. T. Rciian on the 



regarded as specific still appear to me to have the same value 

 as before. 



AVitii reo;ar(l to the suggested reduction in the number of 

 species : I have never seen an Ar(/es with the ventral fins 

 inserted under the middle of the dorsal, as in the fish 

 figured by Evermanu and Kendall * and as in Steindachner^s 

 figure of Aryes prenadiUa. In nearly all the specimens I 

 have seen of A. Eigenmanni the insertion of the ventral fins 

 may fairly be described as exactly opposite to the origin of 

 the dorsalj iu a few it is slightly in advance of the oi igin 



Arges Eigenmanni : male, female, and immature examples. 



of the dorsal, and in one specimen (a male) it falls in the 

 vertical from between the bases of the first and second dorsal 

 ravs. Consequently I am quite unable, at any rate until I 

 haVe seen examples corresponding to Arges prenadilla, to 

 accept the view of the specific identity of A. Eigenmanni 

 and A. prenadilla. 



A comparison of the figures given lure of A. Eigenmanni 



* The female fish described and figured by 3Iessrs. Evermanu and 

 Kendall may be a .specimen of Arr/es prejindilla. If their statement that 

 there is no slit behind the last gill be correct, this fish is certainly very 

 different from A. Eirjenmanni, in which there is a well-developed slit 

 behind tlie fourth <zill. If tlieir description of the relative ])roportions of 

 interorbital width, distance frcmi eye to nostril, &c. becorrect, their figure 

 of the upper surface of the head must bj hopelessly inaecurale. 



