40 DR. A. GiJNTHER ON [Jan. 1-4, 



48. NoTOPTERUS CHiTALA, Ham. Buch. M. 



49. MoNOPTERUS jAVANENSis, Lacep. M., I. 



50. Anguilla sidat, Blkr. M. 



51. MuRiENA TILE, Hatii. Buch. M. 



LOPHOBKANCHII. 



52. DORYICHTHYS CAUDATUS, PtrS. M. 



Plectognathi. 



53. Tetrodon pai.embangensis, Blkr. M. 



54. Tetrodon liurus, Blkr. M. 



5. A Contribution to our Knowledge of British Pleuronectidse. 

 By Dr. A. Gunther, F.R.S., V.P.Z.S. 



[Beceived December 6, 1889.] 



(Plate III.) 



1. On tJie Occurrence o/Arnoglossus lophotes and Amoglossus 

 grohmanni in British Seas. 



In the fourth volume of the ' Catalogue of Fishes,' p. 417 (1862), 

 I described from three skinned specimens which formed part of the 

 Yarrell Collection a new species of Amoglossus under the name of 

 A. lophotes. I was unable to give the localit)' whence these speci- 

 mens were obtained, but inferred from the mode of their preserva- 

 tion that it was more probable that they came from British seas 

 than from the Mediterranean. I placed this new species close to 

 Amoglossus grohmanni from the Mediterranean, which is sufficiently 

 well figured in Bonaparte's ' Fauna Italica,' and correctly described by 

 Canestrini (Arch, Zool. i. p. 12, tav. i. fig. ,i) ; and pointed out 

 such differences between the two species that it seemed almost im- 

 possible to confound them. 



The uncertainty about A. lophotes being a British species was, 

 however, soon removed by Couch, who in his 'History of British 

 Fishes' (1864) states that he had examined a specimen obtained at 

 Plymouth, and by Professor Moseley, who in 1882 captured another 

 example of the same species in the trawl off Lundy Island, which he 

 deposited in the British Museum. 



To the late Mr. F. Day neither the evidence brought forward by 

 me nor that of Couch seemed satisfactory enough to introduce this 

 fish into the British fauna (Fish. Great Brit. ii. p. 23), and it was 

 only after Professor Moseley's capture that he admitted it, asserting, 

 howe\er, that it was identical with the Mediterranean A. grohmanni 

 (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1882, p. 748, pi. 53). 



The opportunity of again setting right this error is now offered 



