Mr. F. Day on the Bib and Poor-God, 153 



vol. iv. 1862, p. 335; while in this latter work it was re- 

 marked that " the ribs of this species [the bib] are propor- 

 tionally longer and stronger than in the preceding [the poor- 

 er power-cod]." Couch (' Fishes of the British Islands,' 

 iii. 1877, pp. 70 and 72, and on plates 138 and 139) did not 

 place these fish under one head, but observed of the poor-cod : 

 " vent nearer the tail [than in the bib], opposite the termi- 

 nation of the first dorsal. The first dorsal also begins further 

 distant from the head ; the pectorals are shorter ; ventrals also 

 shorter, not reaching halfway to the vent ; tail slightly in- 

 curved " (p. 73). Dr. M'Intosh, when enumerating the 

 * Fishes of St. Andrews,' 1875, p. 178, remarked : '' Gadus 

 minutus, Linn., common ; G. luscus, Linn., not uncommon." 

 I omit reference to the statements in my ' British and Irish 

 Fishes,' 1882, pp. 286, 288, plates 80 and 81, for obvious 

 reasons, simply observing that the views I then held I see no 

 cause to alter. 



The first author of any note in ichthyology who during 

 the last two centuries has separated these forms was, I believe, 

 Winther, in his ' Marine Ichthyology of Denmark,' 1879, 

 p. 29, where he placed, under Gadus minutus, two subspecies 

 or varieties : (a) minutus, (b) luscus. But in the Ann. & 

 Mag. Nat. Hist. 1886, xvii. pp. 442, 443, Professor M'Intosh 

 remarked of the poor-cod, that my " elaborate descriptions 

 in regard to eyes, teeth, fins, scales, lateral line, and colours 

 are not always satisfactory, since they fail to show the re- 

 lationship existing between the adult and young stages appa- 

 rently of the same species." Having quoted my observations 

 on Winther's opinion, he concluded that as I stated that I 

 had " not had an opportunity of investigating both sexes in 

 these two species of fish," that such " indicates some un- 

 certainty on the subject." He continued thus: — ''my own 

 experience of the species has now led me to conclude that 

 what has been described as the poor- or power-cod {Gaduf, 

 minutus) by several authors is only the young of the bib," 

 concluding that " the confusion in regard to this species 

 has partly arisen from an examination of preserved spe- 

 cimens." 



Although my opinion had been here called in question, in 

 my reply {I. c. p. 527) I could merely suggest that an 

 account of the intermediate links between these two forms 

 (which up to Winther's time had invariably been held to be 

 distinct species) should be given by Dr. M'Intosh. Personally 

 I possessed no new materials to work upon, and deemed it 

 preferable to wait until such time as I had, for assertions are 

 not proof. I took steps, however, to secure some fresh speci- 

 mens, and applied to my old friend Mr. Dunn, of Mevagissey, 



