322 MR. R. COLLETT ON CERTAIN GOBIOID FISHES. [Mar. 5, 



which perhaps may be the same as Risso's, although it can hardly be 

 proved with any certainty, as the description is, in the first place, too 

 incomplete, and, secondly, disagrees in several respects with our 

 species. It is therefore scarcely advisable to adopt the generic name 

 given by Risso ; but if this naturalist really had in view L. pellucidus 

 (which is very probable), his description, besides being incorrect 1 , is 

 also incomplete, from no notice having been taken of the mature 

 male. Another generic name, which is ascribed to Nardo, is Brachio- 

 chirus (cf. Ronap. Cat. Method. Pesci Europ. p. 64, Napoli, 1846, 

 and Atti 1st. Veneto, torn. v. ser. 3, p. 796, Venezia, 1859-60) ; but 

 I have had no opportunity of examining the work wherein that genus 

 is established 2 . Canestrini mentions the species, in his memoirs on 

 the Gobioid Fishes found in the Gulf of Genoa (Arch. Zool. Anat. 

 Fisiol. fasc. ii. vol.i. p. 152), under the name of Gobius albus, Parn. 

 This author shows the difference in the structure of the teeth be- 

 tween the sexes in the Mediterranean form, without, however, 

 bringing his description to bear upon the young male. 



Last year I received from Prof. G. O. Sars a couple of specimens 

 of the Adriatic form, collected by him during a stay in Trieste in 

 the spring of 1876. As it seems to abound there, and is well known 

 to all fishermen, it is very possible that it is Nardo's G. pellucidus; 

 and it has therefore been of much interest to me to be able to make 

 a comparison between this and the northern form, with which it 

 agrees in development (L. stuwitzii). This comparison has been 

 thoroughly conclusive of the fact that they are identical. The speci- 

 mens from Trieste were collected in the month of March, and had 

 then not yet reached their fully mature state. Their total length 

 varies between 42 and 44 millims. ; otherwise the length of the 

 head, the size of the eyes, the general structure of the body, the 

 number of rays and of the transverse muscular strise — further, the 

 teeth — in short, every thing, down to the most minute spots of the 

 coloration, completely agrees with specimens of the same size and 

 state of development from Christiania. 



Finally, Kessler, in Bull. Soc. Imp. Nat. Mosc. torn, xxxii. (1859), 

 gives a tolerably detailed description of a form from the Black Sea 

 (Odessa), which he calls Gobius pellucidus, n. sp., being apparently 

 ignorant of Nardo's previous description of a species of the same 

 name. 



"With regard to this form, it does not seem to differ at all from L. 

 albus (or the male in spawning-season) . The distinction between 

 them, which Dr. Giinther thinks may be made, that Kessler's 

 species has a larger diameter of the eye, namely £ of the length of 



1 This is especially the case with regard to the description of the fins and 

 their rays ; the number of the rays in the first dorsal is also omitted, which is a 

 point of great importance. 



2 If in Risso's Aphya and Nardo's Brachiochirus we can recognize Latrun- 

 cuius pellucidus, both these names will have priority over Latrunculus, Giinther. 

 The decision of this, as well as other similar questions of priority, I leave to 

 those who have greater opportunities of examining the literature of Southern 

 Europe than can be obtained here in the library of the University of Chris- 

 tiania. 



