taken off the coast of Northumberland. 13 



not actually inspect the fish. The copier of the figure sent to 

 Bloch appears to Mr. Couch to have committed a great mistake 

 by attempting to correct one which he supposed to have been 

 made by the original draftsman, and the mistake consists prin- 

 cipally in his having removed the two filaments in front of the 

 dorsal fin to the situation of the ventral fin, thus making four 

 filaments there instead of two. The same mistake appears to 

 have been made with regard to the figure of the G. Hawkenii in 

 YarrelFs l Fishes/ that figure being, as Mr. Yarrell informs our 

 friend Mr. Alder, incorrect as regards the number of ventral fila- 

 ments, and the addition of the caudal fin. 



It appears therefore that the G. Hawkenii of Bloch is simply 

 the fish caught at Newlyn incorrectly copied. In the notes ap- 

 pended to the drawing sent us by Mr. Couch, and which are 

 copied from the original, are merely mentioned the date of the 

 capture as above and the measurements ; " its length without the 

 tail, which it wanted, was S~ ft., its extreme breadth 10^ in., and 

 its thickness but 2f in." 



Its proportions therefore, allowing the tail to be somewhat 

 deficient, come pretty near to those of our fish ; if the drawing 

 however is to be relied on, it differs from ours in having only two 

 filaments from the head with expanded feather-like extremities, 

 and in having the ventral processes like those of the head. The 

 fins also are crimson, and the body is marked all over by delicate 

 roundish spots, and has a few obscure streaks obliquely placed 

 below the lateral line. 



On the whole then we are inclined to believe the Cornish spe- 

 cimen distinct from the G. Banksii, though, from the evident 

 want of knowledge of the draftsman, much reliance cannot be 

 placed on his details. 



Notwithstanding the rarity of the genus Gymnetrus, there is 

 every reason to believe that specimens of it have been taken from 

 time to time off the north-eastern coast of England. It appears 

 by the ' Annual Register ' that a fish was captured off Whitby, 

 January 22, 1759, closely related to, if not identical with our spe- 

 cies. The account, which may be interesting, we here reproduce. 

 It is by Lionel Charlton, author of a ? History of Whitby ': — 



u Yesterday (Jan. 22) a very extraordinary fish was brought 

 here by our fishermen, which broke into three pieces as they were 

 hauling it into the coble. It was 11 ft. 4 in. long, exclusive of the 

 tail, had a head like a turbot or brat, was about a foot broad near 

 its head, but not above 4 or 5 in. near the tail, and not anywhere 

 more than 3 in. thick. The thickest part was its belly, and it 

 gradually diminished away towards the back, which was sharp, 

 and had all along it one continued fin from the head to the tail. It 

 was covered with an infinite number of white scales which stuck to 



