58 
Seriola lalandii is recorded from no less than thirty-two stations, 
but, as a matter of fact, this species was not once taken in the trawl. 
The records, on the whole, refer to Promethichthys prometheus, but 
several of them apply to Thyrsites atun also. These mistakes are 
capable of explanation, and it will be well for me to correct them 
here, lest they pass into purely scientific hterature. Seeing that my 
name appears in the report, it might be too readily assumed that the 
identifications had the authority incidental to my association. Seriola 
lalandit is the name attached to the kingfish in the report, but the 
common name is applied to two distinct fishes by New Zealand fisher- 
men. Generally speaking, the kingfish of the South Island is Pro- 
methichthys prometheus, that of the North Island Serzola lalandii. The 
error above alluded to results from the dual use of a popular name, 
and should serve as an object-lesson to those who, regarding scientific 
names as pedantic, do not understand the necessity of natural objects 
being exactly defined and correctly named. 
The southern kingfish is a near relative of the barracouta (Thyr- 
sites atun), and is of similar appearance. These two fishes were 
commonly confounded on board. Small examples of the former were 
almost invariably recorded as barracouta, until I drew attention 
to an immediate means of identification in the very different contour 
of the lateral lines in the respective species. 
The gurnards are included under the name Trigla kumu, but 
the majority of the records apply to species of Lepidotrigla: these 
are smaller forms, not to be compared, commercially, with the 
larger Chelidonichthys (Trigla) kumu. The record is thus mis- 
leading. 
I might mention other discrepancies, but, as my object is to indi- 
cate the grave errors which are bound to result in the absence of 
scientific knowledge, rather than to be hypercritical, I will refer to one 
other matter only. This, however, is of extreme interest to the ich- 
thyologist and the student of the geographical distribution of species. 
I pomt to the records under the name “Shark”: in one table this 
appears under Stations 47, 85, and 91, and in another table under 
Stations 46, 75, 80, and 91. The occurrences last noticed are recorded 
under the name Heterodontus philippi. Had these records been made 
at stations subsequent to my severance with the expedition, they 
would, in the absence of specimens, have been liable to acceptance. 
Fortunately, all occur within the period of my association; I am 
therefore able to say that the Port Jackson shark (Heterodontus) was 
not taken; moreover, no species was secured at any of the stations 
mentioned which could by any chance whatever be mistaken {for 
Heterodontus. It is not improbable that the genus may occur in our 
northern waters; it has, in fact, been recorded from New Zealand—a 
record, however, open to doubt. This record of H. philippi is based 
on two specimens in the British Museum, presented by Professor Owen, 
and stated to be from New Zealand. It was accepted by Hutton, 
