some doubtful British Fishes. 45 



suggested, it was not a mutilated example of the Dealfish of the 

 Orcadians, Gymnetrus arcticus.'' 



With enlarged opportunities for arriving at a possible decision 

 concerning at least the second specimen, I proceed to institute 

 inquiries into the nature of these materials. The form and ap- 

 proximately the proportions noticed by Hoy, the " operculum 

 on each side^' of the mouth, simulated by the supramaxillars, 

 the soft dorsal rays, the bristles at the end of the tail, and the 

 strongly marked straight lateral line appear to indicate, as 

 Fleming has suggested, that Hoy had before him in his first 

 specimen a much injured example of Trachypterus with most of 

 its fins destroyed ; and it is probable that a hole, caused by the 

 caducous ventral fins, might have been mistaken for the anus*. 

 This may seem very remarkable ; but it is evident that Mr. Hoy 

 has not the slightest claim to scientific consideration, and the 

 hole so created in Trachypterus would correspond in space to the 

 "anus'^ discovered by that gentleman. A thoracic anus is 

 incom.patible with the structure of the Trachypteroids or any 

 related forms. The "blackish-green^' colour of the portion of 

 the dorsal remaining might have been due to discoloration; and 

 we need not be much astonished that the lateral dorsal spots 

 were overlooked in such a specimen. 



The second of Hoy's specimens evidently belonged to an entirely 

 different type. The form and " closely muricated '' belly indicate 

 that it was related to the family of Lepturoids or Trichiuroids ; 

 but the " blunt point " in which the tail terminates, as well as 

 the median lateral line, forbid us, on morphological grounds 

 alone, referring it to Trichiurus lepturus. It might be sup- 

 posed to have been a specimen of Lepidopus caudatus, were it 

 not for the colour ; but that, sustained by the superior height, 

 forbids us to refer it to that species. What, then, can it have 

 been ? 



In the summer of 1863, I received from the learned Cuban 

 naturalist, Prof. Poey, of the University of Havanna, a fish, con- 

 cerning whose systematic position he was unable to satisfy him- 

 self. This fish was found to resemble Lepidopus caudatus in all 

 essential characters except the remarkable form of the head, 

 which was exceedingly compressed, trenchant and obliquely 

 decurved above, with the forehead elevated above the eyes, and 



* This same mistake, indeed, was made in the communication by Dr. 

 Duguid to Dr. Fleming concerning the same lish (see Loudon*s Mag. iv. 

 (1831) pp. 215, 216) ; and Dr. Fleming himself, so far from correcting the 

 error, aUuded to the similarity of the so-called vent as evidence of the 

 pertinence of Hoy's fish to the same species (op. cit. iv. 219). By a some- 

 what singular coincidence, the same error in identification of Trachypterus 

 with Trichiurus lepturus was made by Olafsen (Voyage to Iceland, p. 692). 



