25(5 BANKs's GARFISH. 



editions of his "History of British Fishes;" but I agree with 

 Dr. J. E. Gray, in believing that the supposed date is a mistake. 

 The inscription on it says that the weight of the fish was forty 

 pounds, but it departs more than any other figure from the 

 most essential characters of other figures and of Nature. Thus 

 the lengthened rays on the top of the head are thrown aside, 

 or transferred to the ventral fins, which are made to possess 

 four instead of two. The jaws arc unnaturally drawn out, as 

 in Mr. Chirgwin's drawing, and a depression of the outline is 

 represented behind the head. The added caudal fin is also 

 represented, although with some difference, and the figure on 

 the whole is so conducted as to shew that the imagination of 

 the draftsman has had a greater influence on the work than the 

 observance of Nature. 



Notwithstanding Mr. Chirgwin's opinion to the contrary, there 

 cannot be a doubt that the drawing in the possession of Sir 

 Joseph Banks was carefully formed from the fish itself. It 

 especially represents the natural shape of the jaws and front of 

 the head. By an outline of the latter it will be seen that the 

 elevated rays of the front of the dorsal fin or plume is in some 

 degree more correctly represented than in the other drawing, 

 but they do not possess the wid(;-spread extremities which are 

 shewn in Mr. Chirwin's figure; and as experience in other 

 instances shews them to be brittle, they may have been broken 

 oflf by frequent handling. 



It is a pleasure to be able to transfer our notice from these, 

 on the whole imperfect or erroneous materials, to the more 

 authentic account of a recent example which is given by 

 Mr. Hancock and Dr. Embleton, and which, as we shall presently 

 see, has also come under our own examination. The history of 

 the capture of this specimen is thus given: — "On the 26th. of 

 March, 1849, a fine specimen of a species of Gymnetrus, or 

 Kibbonfish, was captured by Bartholomew Taylor and his two 

 sons, the crew of a fishing-coble belonging to Cullercoats. It 

 was found at about six miles from shore, and in from twenty 

 to thirty fathoms water. The men having started from their 

 fishing-ground to return homewards, observed at a little distance 

 what appeared to be broken w^at(M-; and on coming near the 

 spot they perceived a large fish lying on its side near the 

 surface. The fish as they drew near to it righted itself in the 



