23 



Eisso makes no mention of any nostril on the under side of the head of any other 

 species of Pleuronectes, it is pretty evident that he was struck with a peculiar 

 conspicuous nostril, such as exists in the English form we are considering. 



Bonaparte oives a good description and two excellent coloured figures in his ".Fauna 

 Italica," 1832-41, of a species which he calls Solea lascaris, and which he identifies 

 with the Solea lascaris of Eisso's " Hist. Xatur. de 1'Europe Mer.," the Pleuronectes 

 lascaris of the same author's " Ichthyologie de Xice." The fin formula given by 

 Bonaparte is 



D. 78, A. 60, P. 8,Y. 5, C. 19. 



It will be seen that the formula given by Eisso agrees perfectly with the numbers 

 observed by myself in British specimens, and that Bonaparte's differs so little from the 

 lowest numbers found by me that, considering the rest of his description and his figures, 

 there can be no doubt that the British specimens are of the same species as those 

 observed by him. I conclude, therefore, that Bonaparte was correct in his identifi- 

 cation, and that the British species of sole, described above, is the Solea lascaris of 

 Eisso, more completely described by Bonaparte under the same name. 



Dr. Giiuther identified the Solea irnpar of Bennett, of which he possessed only the 

 original type specimen described by Bennett himself, with the Solea lascaris of 

 Bonaparte. But, after carefully examining the specimen and the descriptions myself, 

 I am unable to accept Dr. Giinther's conclusion. 



In the British Museum Catalogue a single specimen is identified as the Solea lascaris 

 of Eisso. The chief peculiarities in Dr. Giinther's definition of this species are : the 

 small size of the scales, the formula being LI. 150; the narrowness of the body, the 

 height being one-third of the total length; and the prolongation of the upper jaw, 

 which is described as " produced into a longish lobe overhanging the lower." Of 

 these characters only the last corresponds to anything in Eisso's description ; but I 

 find that in my English specimens of the lemon sole, the upper jaw embraces the 

 apex of the lower somewhat more than in the common sole, and that in the 

 British Museum specimen the jaws do not differ to any appreciable extent in this 

 respect from the English form. What Eisso says on this point applies to the English 

 specimens. Eisso says nothing concerning the number of the scales nor of the 

 proportion of breadth to length in his lascaris. 



The specimen which Giinther calls Solea lascaris came from Madeira ; the specimen 

 called Solea impar by Bennett came from the Atlantic coast of North Africa. Eisso's 

 Solea lascaris on the other hand, occurred at Xice, and Bonaparte's species is described 

 as common at Venice, at Nice, and on the Eoman shores. In the collections under 

 Dr. Giinther's charge there are specimens identified as Solea aurantiaca from Lisbon 

 and from Xice. Thus specimens of the same species as the English specimens have 

 been found at Xice, while the British Museum possesses no specimen identified with 

 Eisso's lascaris, or with Bonaparte's lascaris from any part of the Mediterranean. 



