Crenilabrus multid^ntatus with Labrus pusillus. 419 



parison of this specimen, 2\ inches in length, with my own, 

 proved the species to be the same. 



It must be stated that C. multidentatus was not considered 

 a distinct species, without even critical attention having been 

 given to the description of L. pusillus. The following are the 

 chief differences that led to the behef of their non-identity. 



L. pusillus. 

 " Teeth of moderate size, conical, 

 regular, about 16 or 18 in each 

 jaw. 



Jaws equal. 



Colour (in spirits) yellowish- 

 brown, with irregular trans- 

 verse fuscous bands : dorsal ir- 

 regularly spotted with fuscous: 

 anal light brown ; the other 

 fins pale." 



C. multidentatus. 



" Teeth numerous and large, two 

 rows in the upper, one in the 

 lower jaw, number in lower 

 26, outer row of upper jaw 20*. 



Upper yatt? the longer +. 



Colour (in spirits) ver5''pale green- 

 ish brown on the back, olive- 

 green on the sides becoming 

 paler beneath, sides with dark- 

 er longitudinal bands through- 

 out ; 3 blackish spots, one on 

 the pre-opercle behind and ra- 

 ther below the centre of the 

 eye, a second on the body at 

 the base of the caudal fin and 

 at its lowermost portion, and 

 the third at the base of the last 

 ray of the dorsal fin." 



Mr. Yarrell's specimen, which is in excellent preservation, 

 has no appearance whatever of transverse fuscous bands, like 

 the individual described by Mr. Jenyns : — it is also free from 

 spots, thus differing again from mine J. 



When looking over Mr. R. BalPs collection of native fishes 

 in June last, I had the pleasure of seeing among them a Cre- 

 nilabrus, which accorded better, in some respects, with Mr. 

 Jenyns' description of L. pusillus than the smaller specimens, 

 and, compared with them, differed m several points of view 

 to be hereafter noticed. 



* My specimens, with the teeth more numerous, were nearly one-half 

 smaller than the one which (from the length of 4 inches being assigned to 

 the species) I presumed served for Mr. Jenyns' description. 



f The difference in the length of jaws is very trivial. 



X See an excellent figure in the Mag. Zoof. and Bot., vol. ii. pi. 13, to 

 which draughtsman and engraver did equal justice. 



2 F 2 



