GARMAN: THE CHIMAEROIDS. 261 
“The specimen (male) was bought in the Tokyo market and is marked as from 
Kurthama, Province of Sagami ; there can be no doubt that fishermen of that village 
caught it in the deep waters (two hundred fathoms or more) contiguous to Misaki. 
Its unique characters had long been noted by us. 
“ Unfortunately, I am not yet in possession of the original description of Hariotta 
raleighana by Messrs. GoopE and Brean. But the short description, ‘ the extremely 
elongate muzzle and the feeble claspers’ as well as the comparison of the two 
figures leave no doubt in my own mind that the two individuals figured belong to 
the same genus. 
“There can also be very little question that they belong to different species. 
(1) The general shape of the body, (2) the shape and size of the pectoral and ven- 
tral fins, (8) the point to which these fins reach when laid back, (4) the shape and 
disposition of the dorsal fins, (5) distribution of the lateral-line sense-system all 
seem to point to the specific distinction of the Atlantic and Pacific specimens. 
The name Hariotta pucifica will be most appropriate to the Japanese species.” 
It would be a matter of some difficulty from this notice, or from the outlines 
accompanying it, to make a satisfactory identification; it was only by com- 
parison with the type that it might be done. No other description had been 
published when the specimen of which the present writing treats was brought 
by Dr. Agassiz from Tokyo. This specimen was dissected from one side and 
‘drawings and descriptions were made from the preparations. In the second 
volume of the Proceedings of the New England Zoological Club, page 75, a 
short preliminary to the present paper was published, in 1901, under the title 
‘¢ Genera and Families of the Chimaeroids,” in which it was shown that Pro- 
fessor Mitsukuri’s species did not belong to the genus Harriotta, known from 
the Atlantic, that it represented a new genus, which was then characterized 
and named Rhinochimaera, and that it with Harriotta constituted a new family, 
the Rhinochimaeridae, of equal rank with the Chimaeridae and the Callorhyn- 
chidae, the last also a new family. The genera and the families were briefly 
characterized in the preliminary; the characterizations, of greater length and 
slightly modified by the anatomical studies, are repeated in the present paper. 
One question raised by the subsequent studies relates to the presence or ab- 
sence of tritors in Rhinochimaera. On teeth the cutting edges of which have 
not been worn with hard usage no tritors are visible; but if the extremities of 
the minute calcigerous tubes to be seen with a lens on the cutting edges of 
worn teeth are to be accepted as tritors, it is incorrect to say Rhinochimaera 
has no tritors. Besides the possession of several series of molar-like tritors, 
the structure of the proboscis in Harriotta, depressed instead of compressed, is 
a very patent distinction. It was stated in the preliminary that the frontal 
tenaculum is present on the males of Harriotta, as on males of Rhinochimaera, 
Chimaera, and Callorhynchus, a fact which was denied in the original diag- 
nosis of that genus. It was added that the frontal tenaculum is only acquired 
by the young male somewhat late in his existence, about the time he becomes 
sexually mature and the intromittent “claspers’’ have approached functional 
maturity, the advent of the tenaculum coinciding nearly with the beginning of 
