Fis/ies taken at Madeira. 245 



inches. 



Pectorals, distance from snout l^^o 



„ width of base -^o 



Ventrals, length Xo 



„ distance from snout 2^ 



Anal, length of base 1 A- 



„ height anteriorly ^h 



Tail, length .' ^ 



„ height T% 



Caudal, length If 



Zeus conchifer, Lowe, 

 Proc. Zool. Soc. vol. xiii. 1845 ; Ann. Nat. Hist, ser. 2. vol. x. 49. 



Two examples of this rare fish, which have been recently pro- 

 cured, presented certain variations from the descriptions hitherto 

 published; and these differences it may be desirable to mention. 

 The larger specimen had a length of 28^ inches, with a height 

 of 11^ inches; the smaller measured in length 27\ inches, and 

 in height 10^ inches. 



The normal number of the branchiostegal rays of the genus 

 appears to be 7; but in one of my specimens there were 5 on 

 one side and 6 on the other, in the second specimen 6 on each 

 side. 



As to the bony plates or scutella found at the base of the 

 anal fin, Giinther's Catalogue of the Collection at the British 

 ^luseum (vol. ii. p. 395) speaks of 6 on each side, whereas, in 

 one of my specimens, there were only 5, in the other 7, at each 

 side of that fin. In the former (the larger specimen) the plates 

 did not correspond on the two sides of the fin. On the right 

 side the last plate but two was the largest, and the last was 

 very small ; on the left side the last but one was the largest, and 

 the last of moderate size. In the latter specimen the plates 

 corresponded on the two sides of the body, the last but two 

 being the largest, and the last the smallest of each series. 

 Between the ventral and anal fins there was, in the larger speci- 

 men, a series of 8 pairs of bony plates; in the smaller the series 

 consisted of 7 pairs only. 



The filaments of the anterior spinous rays of the dorsal are 

 stated by Mr. Lowe to be very short ; but in my larger specimen 

 the filament of the first spine (itself 5^ inches long) projected 

 2| inches beyond the tip of the spine, and those of the succeed- 

 ing two projected about 1^ inch beyond their respective spines. 



The doi-sal and anal fin formula is given by Mr. Lowe thus : — 

 D. 9 or 10 + 25 or 26. A. 2+ (1+25 or 26). In the larger of 

 my specimens the rays were, D. 9 + 25. A. 3 + 24; in the 

 smaller D. 9 + 27. A. 3 + 26. 



In the British jNIuseum Catalogue it is stated, in the diagnosis 



