some doubtful British Fishes. 4t7 



viction that it belongs to the genus Cetorhinus or Selache, and 

 that the differences observed are probably due to distortion or 

 defective observation. I have already stated that "the absence 

 of caudal carinse or spiracles is quite improbable;" and certainly 

 no ichthyologist could believe in the absence of the anal fin in 

 such a type. 



I may finally be permitted to add, in anticipation of a more ex- 

 tended memoir, some remarks on the Lemniscates of Richardson, 

 and more especially the Leptocephalus Morrisii, Gm. The recent 

 exposition of the character of such fishes by Professor V. Carus * 

 will excuse this anticipation. I am happy to be able to express 

 my unqualified belief in the conclusion as to their being simply 

 larval forms, which that learned naturalist has enunciated. As 

 long as the known hyaline fishes conformed to a single type, 

 naturalists might be excused for regarding them as fully deve- 

 loped forms ; but the doubt this group was first subjected to by 

 the failure of KoUiker f to find organs of generation, was in- 

 increased by the addition (by Kaup) of the genus Esunculus%f 

 and subsequently of Stomiasunculus^. Carus was therefore, I 

 think, fully justified in his " conclusion that all these fishes are 

 nothing but larval forms of others." But he was not so happy in 

 looking for the adults "among the Ophidians or other compressed 

 forms" {Cepola, and so on||). I am almost certain that the typical 

 Leptocephali, at least, are the young of Congers, and ihoi Lepto- 

 cephalus Morrisii is the young of Conger vulgaris. I am aware, 

 indeed, that Yarrell^ has discovered that small Congers, " about 

 the size (length ?) of a man^s finger, are found among the rocks, 

 close to land, during the summer." But he immediately after- 

 wards adds that " the small eels which ascend the Severn in 

 such numbers in the spring, and were considered by Willughby 

 and Pennant as the young of the Conger, are in reality the 

 young of freshwater eels." May we not go a step further, and 

 ask that it may be demonstrated that those " found among rocks 

 close to land " are Congers, and not eels which have not yet 

 commenced ascending the rivers ? 



TheHyoproprus Messinensis^^ appears likewise to be merely the 



* On the LeptocephaUdae, in Rep. Brit. Ass. 1861, p. 125. 

 t Zeitschrift fiir Wiss. Zool. iv. p. 360. 

 X Apodal Fishes, (1856) p. 143, fig. 3. 

 § Ann. & Mag. Nat. Hist. ser. 3. vol. vi. (1860) p. 270. 

 II See the remarks of Dr. Peters on this question in the following 

 article. — Ed. Annals. 



IF Brit. Fishes, ii. (1841) p. 404. 



** KoUiker, Verb. d. Phys. Med. Gesellsch. in Wiirzburg, iv. p. 101. 



