Zoological Society. 503 



Shaw (Zool. it. 198) observes : " It appears from a print published 

 in the year 1798, that a specimen of this fish {Gymnetrus Hawkenii) 

 was thrown on the coast of Cornwall in the month of February in the 

 same year. Its length was 8 feet 6 inches, its breadth in the widest 

 part 10^ inches, and its thickness 2 J inches. The tail in this speci- 

 men was wanting ; the colour the same as in the specimen (of Gymne- 

 trus Hawkenii) figured by Dr. Bloch." 



I have no doubt, as Valenciennes suspected (see Hist. Poiss. x. 

 375), from comparing these accounts with the drawing in the edition 

 of Pennant above quoted, and with Russell's and Shaw's notices, that 

 they are from that authority, and that the two dates in the notes, and 

 the length mentioned by Dr. Shaw, are mistakes of the copyist. I have 

 not been able to find the engraving mentioned by Shaw, which was 

 doubtless made from this drawing, though there is a slight variation 

 in each of the items of the measurements given by the latter author. 

 Could he have considered this drawing as a published print ? The 

 writing is so beautifully executed that he might be deceived unless 

 he examined it very carefully. 



Mr. Couch, in his paper on Cornish fishes, Linn. Trans, xiv. 77, 

 informs us, under 



" Ceil Conin. — This fish was drawn on shore in a net at Newlin 

 (Newlyn) in this country in February 1791. Th£ extremity of the 

 tail was wanting ; the length of what remained was 8£ feet, the depth 

 10£ inches, thickness 2J inches, weight 40 lbs. A coloured drawing 

 of this fish is in the possession of W. Rashleigh, Esq., F.L.S., of 

 Menabilly." 



Mr. Couch has seen this drawing. A copy reduced to one-fourth 

 its size is given by Mr. Yarrell in his excellent work on British Fishes, 

 vol. ii. p. 221. 



I have great doubt if the fish mentioned by Mr. Couch is not also 

 the same specimen as the one described as caught on 23rc? of February 

 1 788, as it is found in the same place, is the same size and weight, 

 &c, and that the date is a mistake. The addition of the two ventral 

 fins was probably a fancy of the artist, like the addition of the tail, 

 the drawing of the fish sent to Sir Joseph Banks being without these 

 fanciful embellishments. 



It has been supposed, because the copy of the drawing given by 

 Mr. Yarrell is very like the figure of Gymnetrus Hawkenii in Bloch' s 

 Hist. Ich. xii. t. 433, that the drawing of the Cornish fish was the 

 origin of Bloch' s figure ; but it is to be observed that Mr. Hawken 

 sent a specimen as well as a drawing of the fish he received from Goa ; 

 that his specimen was only 2\ feet long, and the Cornish specimen 

 8^- feet. See Cuvier, Hist. Poissons, x. 374. 



Dr. Shaw (Zool. iv. 197) informs us that the drawing of Gymnetrus 

 Hawkenii was communicated by " J. Hawkins, Esq. j ■ and he added, 

 " I am assured by Mr. Hawkins that this is really the case (the tail 

 being added by the draughtsman), the specimen from which the 

 drawing was taken having been defective in that part." 



From this examination I conclude that these accounts are all from 

 the specimen and figure in Pennant. 



