DEAL-FISH ON THE NORFOLK COAST. 17 
half-moon shaped space between the base of one spine and the 
next. This was doubtless the result of the drying of the 
membrane, as it was not noticed by Mr. Rump when the fish 
was in a fresh condition. The process shown at b in Fleming’s 
figure was certainly not present in this specimen. 
The caudal fin was too imperfect to give any indication of its 
form. Its remains consisted of seven broken spines, three inches 
long, directed upwards. The ventral fins mentioned by Mr. Rump 
had disappeared. The “furrow,” mentioned by Fleming, at the 
top of the head was conspicuous; but the “ elastic tissue” had 
quite dried up on the head, leaving the plates, to all appearance, 
bare. The soft parts were destroyed before I saw the fish, but 
Mr. Cole tells me that it was a male. The contents of the 
stomach consisted of a small quantity of slimy fluid. The bones 
" were very soft, and the flesh also very soft and white. The skin 
was exceedingly delicate and devoid of scales. 
This description agrees with that given by Mr. Edward of 
the Banff specimen (Zool. 1879, p. 221), except that he notes the 
absence of both caudal and pectoral fin, which doubtless arose 
from the mutilated condition of his specimen. The base of the 
pectorals is very small, and the skin and flesh so delicate that 
_ the attachment would be very slight. That the peculiarly shaped 
ventral fins mentioned by Mr. Rump also escaped his attention is 
not surprising, as in the Holkham specimen, when it reached 
Norwich, Mr. Cole tells me he observed no trace of them. 
Mr. Cole differs from Mr. Rump as to the situation of the 
vent, which the latter gentleman places “close to the gills,” 
whereas Mr. Cole, who skinned the fish, assures me it was about 
two-thirds of the length of the fish distant from the head. I had 
no means of verifying this when I saw the skin. The Belfast 
specimen (Zool. 1875, p. 4843), which was washed up at Bundoran, 
on the southern shore of Donegal Bay, greatly exceeded the one 
now recorded in size, being seven feet nine inches long, but 
whether it differed in other respects, the brief notice given of it 
affords no means of forming an opinion. Mr. J. H. Gurney, jun., 
tells me that he saw a Deal-fish a few years ago at Teesmouth, 
but is not aware whether it was recorded. 
It is much to be regretted that the specimen now under 
notice was not seen by a competent ichthyologist. Had it been 
immediately forwarded in a fresh state by the fishermen to 
D 
