348 Prof. Mcintosh on the Bih and Poor- God, 



plane of cells presented by the most simple form of the 

 existing species, viz. Orhitolites marginalis^ Lamarck (1816, 

 vol. ii. p. 196), which is almost ubiquitous between the shores 

 of the Mediterranean and those of the south coast of Aus- 

 tralia, if not elsewhere in these latitudes. 



The identity of structure, although not exactly of form, in 

 all the specimens of Orhitolites Mantelli, var. Theohaldi, 

 compels me to consider the latter only a " variety ;" while, 

 as before stated, it is by far the largest discoid specimen of 

 the Foraminifera on record. 



XLV. — Note on the Bih and the Poor- or Power- Cod. 

 By Prof. M'iNTOSH, M.D., LL.D., F.K.S., &c. 



I EEGEET that a little delay has occurred in the performance of 

 my duty in regard to Surgeon-General Day's remarks on these 

 fishes ; but constant occupation in other departments pre- 

 vented attention to the subject till now. 



In my ' Catalogue of the Fishes of St. Andrews' (1875) 

 the bib (Gadus luscus) and the poor-cod [Gadus minutus) 

 were, as the author just mentioned truly says, entered as 

 separate species, and it was only recently that the confusion 

 in the descriptions of these forms struck me, as it probably 

 also did Winther. A reexamination, however, shows that 

 the earlier view (and Mr. Day's) is correct. In the ^ British 

 Fishes ' of the latter author the distinctions rest on the pro- 

 portions of the depth to the length of the body and the larger 

 barbel of the bib *. The first dorsal is stated to have the 

 same number of rays in both ; the second to have a larger 

 range and a few more rays in the poor-cod than in the bib. 

 The first anal has more rays in the bib and arises nearer the 

 vent than in the poor-cod ; while the second has somewhat 

 fewer rays than in the latter, and the fin in the former also 

 arises further forward. Moreover, in his recent paper f Mr. 

 Day correctly points out that these two fins have a more 

 evident interval than in the bib. The lateral line in the 

 latter is stated to curve very gently to the last half of the 

 second dorsal, and then goes straight to the caudal, whereas 

 in the poor- cod it is very slightly bent, becoming straight 

 beneath the second third of the dorsal fin. In Mr. Day's 

 figure of the latter, however, the curvature is less marked than 

 in any example hitherto observed. The vent lies beneath the 

 anterior portion of the dorsal fin in the bib, whereas in the poor- 



* In a bib ISJ inches long tlie barbel was about f inch long and pro- 

 portionally thick. 

 t Ann. & Mag. Nat, Hist., Feb. 1888. 



