Mr. Bennett on some Fishes from Janiaka. 8P 



his description of several species of Hemirhamphus, Cuv., forming part 

 of the paper just quoted, there is some difficulty in determining the pre- 

 sent fish. It can be neither of the West Indian i^pecies there mentioned, 

 for, with a body four times the length of the lower mandible, it has dor- 

 sal and anal fins of equal length. In these particulars, in the silvery 

 band along the side, and in the relative length of the pectoral fins (one 

 half) to the lower jaw, it agrees with the Hem. erythrorhi/nchus, Le S.; 

 the name of which, although no mention is made of such a marking, 

 would appear to indicate the existence of some red on the beak, perhaps 

 confined to the tip, as pointed out by Dr. Bancroft. But the upper 

 mandible in our fish is certainly not " about the length of the diameter 

 " of the eye," scarcely exceeding one half of that diameter ; th^ num- 

 ber of fin-rays is somewhat different, being D. 15, A. 16, instead of 

 D. 16, A. 18 ; and the locality is perfectly distinct, M. Le Sueur's Hem. 

 erythrorhjnchns having been obtained by him and M. Peron, in the East 

 Indian Seas. These differences induce me to regard Dr. Bancroft's fish 

 as distinct from all those of M. Le Sueur. It is evidently the " Orphie 

 " de Rio- Janeiro, Esox dorso monopterygio, rostro apice coccineo, 

 " linea laterali lata, argentea," &c. of Commerson's MSS. as quoted 

 by Lacepede ; in whose Histoire Naturelle des Poissons it forms part of 

 his Esox Gambarur, a medley composed of this western species, of the 

 Hem. marginatus from the Red Sea, and perhaps of a third. With it, 

 however, is not associated by M. Lacepede the Esox Brasiliensis, Linn., 

 as stated by M. Le Sueur ; who must also be in error in regarding one of 

 his West Indian species as the Esox marginatus, Forsk. 



I trust that Dr. Bancroft's exertions will enable him to procure speci- 

 mens of the other western Hemiramphi for comparison ; and should the 

 present prove to be distinct, as I apprehend it will, I would propose for 

 it the trivial name of apicalis. 



11. This fish is referable to the sub-genus Saurus, Cuv., and is cer- 

 tainly nearly related to the Salmo feetens, Linn. Without extensively 

 consulting specimens, it would be impossible to determine any species of 

 a group so comparatively numerous, and mostly differing from each other 

 only in particulars requiring close examination. 



12. To the species figured by Bloch, t^b. cccxxiii (copied in Shaw's 

 General Zoology), the fish transmitted by Dr. Bancroft cannot be referred. 

 It differs in its markings totally, as that gentleman remarks, from Bloch's. 



