688 Bashford Dean Memorial Volume 



color pattern is not very distinct in Whitley's figure (1940) reproduced as my Text-figure 

 20. Whitley states that the color is light-brownish, with the interorbital region and the 

 back in front of (the first?) dorsal fin blackish; a broad blackish bar below the eye; back 

 with some dark transverse bars, one at base of each dorsal fin most prominent, but not 

 joining to depict a "harness". This shark sometimes becomes stained a reddish color on 

 teeth or skin apparently through eating the purple sea urchins of Australian harbors. 



At the time when Maclay and Macleay's description was written (1879), only two 

 specimens of H. galeatus were known : the stuffed specimen in the Australian Museum, 

 and Dr. Giinther's specimen in the British Museum. Maclay and Macleay wrote that it 

 was not at all improbable that the fish might not, after all, be of such very rare occurrence. 

 "The general resemblance to H. pMlipi is considerable, and fishermen are generally far 

 from being acute observers of fish which are not of a marketable character." Ogilby 

 (1890) wrote that, at Port Jackson, the species was almost as common as H. phillipi. He 

 stated that he had also received specimens from Port Stephens, New South Wales. 

 Waite (1898) made extensive collections of marine fishes in the waters adjoining New 

 South Wales, including specimens of H. phillipi from 14 different stations. Concerning H. 

 galeatus he wrote: "Although a careful lookout was kept for the crested species, 

 Heterodontus galeatus, it was never taken and notwithstanding this fact, all the egg cases 

 I saw southward in the shop windows of WoUongong and Kiama were of the latter species 

 [galeatus], those of our commoner form (phillipi) being either rare or quite unknown". 



Teeth. — Waite (1899) pubHshed a photograph of the teeth of both upper and lower 

 jaws of H. galeatus (which he called Gyropleurodus galeatus) and stated that the teeth 

 portrayed by Maclay and Macleay (1879, Figs. 30 and 31, pi. 25) and attributed to H. 

 galeatus, were not of that species. The differences in the figures of the posterior teeth 

 are very marked. In Waiters figure the posterior or grinding teeth are much smaller, 

 more nearly uniform in size and more numerous. In Maclay and Macleay's figure they do 

 not differ materially from those portrayed, by various authors, for other species, except 

 that they are more elongate. In one respect the figures of the posterior teeth by Waite 

 and by Maclay agree: the longitudinal ridge is distinct, perhaps stronger than in any 

 other species. My general impression is that the teeth of H. galeatus figured by Waite 

 are more primitive (in that the posterior or grinding teeth do not differ so much from the 

 anterior or cuspidate teeth) than the teeth of any other species of Heterodontus. 



HETERODOJiTUS JAPOHICUS MACLEAY 



For many years, specimens of Heterodontus collected in Japanese waters were classi- 

 fied as Cestracioyi (Heterodontus) phillipi, the Port Jackson Shark. Thus the specimens 

 figured and described under this name by Miiller and Henle (1841) and by Brevoort (1856) 

 were collected in Japan. Also Siebold (1850, in his "Fauna Japonica") stated that a shark, 

 which he called Cestracion phillipi, was very common during spring and summer along the 

 southwestern coast of Japan, especially in the Bay of Nagasaki. He wrote that it attains 

 a length of three feet and that it was much sought after for food by the Japanese. There 



