470 Transactions.—Zvology. 
with bone. That this genus belongs to the Carangide I have already 
mentioned in ** Proc. Zool. Soc.,” 1869, June 10. 
PLATYSTETHUS HUTTONII. 
D. 18 | 86; A..3,; L. lat. 90. 
Body much compressed, its height being one-third the length of the 
head, one-fourth of the total (without caudal) Eye of moderate size, two- 
ninths of the length of the head, situated a little before the middle of the 
head, not far below the upper profile. Preorbital at least as wide as the 
eye. Mouth oblique, with the lower jaw very prominent, very narrow, the 
maxillary not extending to the front margin of the eye. Dorsal spines 
- feeble, of moderate length; the soft dorsal and anal low. Anal spines short, 
but stronger than those of the dorsal fin. Pectoral broad, rounded, half 
the length of the head. Ventrals small. Caudal deeply forked. Silvery ; 
back above the lateral line, greenish ; the spinous dorsal black. 
Two specimens, 63 inches long, from Dunedin, New Zealand, were sent 
by Capt. Hutton. 
NEOPHRYNICHTHYS LATUS. 
D. 9[17; A. 14; P. 28; V:2. 
The whole fish is enveloped in a loose, smooth skin. Head very broad, 
the interorbital space being especially wide and flat ; snout short, rounded, 
with the lower jaw projecting beyond the upper. The cleft of the mouth 
reaches to below the front margin of the eye, which is lateral and of 
moderate size. Pectorals very large, extending somewhat beyond the origin 
of the anal. Ventrals very short, externally simple, but really consisting 
of two rays. Caudal subtruncate. Brown, covered all over with round 
whitish spots. 
One specimen, 63 inches long, from Dunedin, obtained from the Otago 
Museum. This fish has been named by Capt. Hutton Psychrolutes latus; 
and, from a careful comparison with Psychrolutes paradoxus, I can confirm 
the correctness of his view as regards the affinity of these two fishes ; but 
the presence of a well-developed first dorsal appears to me to demand the 
separation of the New Zealand fish into a distinct genus. The discovery 
of this fish led me to re-consider the position which the Psychrolutide ought 
to take in the system. As the absence of the first dorsal cannot be re- 
tained as one of the characters of the family (which would connect it with 
the Gobiesocide), I think those fishes ought to be removed from the division 
of Gobiesociformes to that of the Cottoscombriformes, where it would follow 
the Batrachide.* 
ri 
none," instead of ** No adhesive ventral apparatus.” Also the diagnosis of the fourteenth 
division should be corrected by striking out the words “ or entirely absent." 
