Mr. F. Day on Tracliinus draco and T. vipera. 353 



M'Intosli considered that " it is possible that the one is 

 only a young stage of the other and that certain distinctions, 

 such as the absence of spines above the orbit in the smaller 

 form and its greater depth in proportion to its length, disap- 

 pear with age." At p. 526 of the same volume I made some 

 remarks, which I now propose supplementing, as Mr. Dunn 

 has procured for me two specimens of the " greater weever," 

 Trnchinus draco, measuring 5*1 and 7"0 inches respectively 

 in length. In my 'British and Irish Fishes,' pi. xxxi., I 

 figured a specimen life-size of the " lesser weever " which 

 measured 4.| inches in length, which I took from a slirinip- 

 net at Weston-super-Mare, and I have seen others nearly an 

 inch longer, while Ogilby has recorded one 65 inches long 

 from Portrush, in the vicinity of Antrim, while he likewise 

 asserted that the " larger weever " was absent from the Irish 

 coasts. 



There is no need to refer again to the greater depth of the 

 smaller species and how it has a lesser number of rays and 

 no spines near the orbit, except for the purpose of remarking 

 upon the two specimens of the Tracliinus draco recently 

 received. In the first, 7 inches long, the spines at the ante- 

 rior-superior angle of the orbit were as distinct as in any of 

 the larger specimens which I have seen, while those in the 

 example 5 inches in length had them as prominent as in the 

 larger fish. If, then, Tracliinus vipera has been observed at 

 4|, 5|, and 6g inches in length with no spines near the orbit, 

 while they are well developed in specimens of Tracliinus 

 draco at 5*1 and 7'0 inches respectively in length, such is a 

 pretty convincing proof that this armature is not consequent 

 upon the augmented size or increased age of the tisli. As to 

 fin-rays, both these small examples of T. draco had D. 6 | 29, 

 A. 31-32, the first of this latter fin being a spine; but I have 

 never seen a T. vipera with more tlian twenty- four soft rays 

 in the dorsal tin or twenty-six in the anal. The form of the 

 body of these small examples of T. draco was not nearly so 

 deep as seen in T. vipera. I think we may safely couciude 

 that Linnaeus was in error when he included the two forms as 

 one species, and that Fleming, Cuvier and Valenciennes, 

 Yarrell, Jenyns, Parnell, White, Giinther, Couch, and others 

 were quite correct in considering that we possess two distinct 

 species; viz. T. draco, D. 5-6 | 29-31, and T. vipera, 

 1). 6 j 21-24, the first with orbital spines, the second without 

 them. 



Chelleuliam, 

 April 6, ItiGb. 



