59 
who, however, wrote,* “I have seen no specimens.” The species was 
subsequently eliminated, as mentioned by Gill, and has not been 
reinstated in the New Zealand lists. In a recent private letter Mr. 
Tate Regan remarks, “ We have reputed examples in our (British 
Museum) collection.” These are possibly the ones which formed the 
basis of the original record. From the foregoing it will be gathered 
that had the specimens taken by the “ Nora Niven” been Hetero- 
dontus philippi, as reported, the circumstance would have been of very 
great interest indeed. 
It would appear that, in some cases at least, scientific names have 
been fitted haphazard to the species, and I may be allowed to doubt 
if any specimens have been subjected to that careful and thorough 
examination which should precede the application of a scientific 
name. Such action is, of course, the result of ignorance of the neces- 
sity of scientific accuracy, and is not here attributed either to mere 
carelessness or design. 
In closing this cursory, though, as I have indicated, necessary 
review of the official report, I may further mention that there is con- 
siderable discrepancy between the records and those taken by myself. 
Much of the official data was collected in a more or less hasty manner, 
unavoidable amid the pressure of other duties, and often from the 
bridge itself. Those intrusted with the compilation will, I believe, 
freely concede the accuracy of my observations, made by a trained 
zoologist, with the fishes actually in hand. 
EXTENSION OF CHARTER. 
A second cruise was commenced on the 9th September, and ex- 
tended to the 3rd December, 1907. 
Mr. Ayson’s reportt thereon was kindly forwarded to me on the 
30th September, 1908, by the Hon. the Minister of Marine, and, 
though this report is outside the scope of the present publication, it 
may be briefly referred to. 
I shall, however, confine my remarks to the “ List of the Various 
Species of Fish taken in the Trawl-net,” as this is the only portion 
affecting the scientific record. No specimens appear to have been 
preserved. 
The “kingfish (Seriola lalandi)” is recorded from sixty-five 
stations, and though it is possible, seeing that the cruise was a northern 
one, that this is correct, it must be borne in mind, as before stated, 
that the species recorded as S. lalandw for the period of the first 
charter was Promethichthys prometheus. 
The “gurnard (Trigla kumu)” is recorded from 104 stations, but 
there is not the slightest doubt that, as on the previous occasion, the 
majority of the records apply to some species of Lepidotrigla. 
* Hutton. Cat. Fish. N.Z., 1872, p. 80. 
+ Ayson. Report, Experimental Trawling, 1908. 
