KED GUKNAKD. 75 



an Irish fish, and which I then considered as specifically distinct from 

 Triyla Guniardus : — 



" Trigla Cuculus, Bloch,* T. Blochii, Yarr., lied Gurnard. 



Of this gurnard, two small specimens, taken at Youghal, County Cork, 

 early in the Summer of 1835, have, along with many other fishes from the 

 same locality, been kindly submitted to my examination by Dr. Ball of 

 Dublin. 



They are respectively 3 and oh inches in length. The number of rays 

 in their fins are — 



D. 8—19 ; P. 10, and 3 ; V. Ijo ; A. 18, and 19 ; C. 10 (and 11). 



A black spot is conspicuous on the membrane, from 3rd to 5th ray of 

 1st D. fin. P. fins extending so far as to be on a line Avith the origin of 

 A. fin.t Dorsal spines, 27. Lateral line strongly serrated. ' "Whole body 

 rough' (as described by Montagu, Wern. Mem. vol. ii. p. 459), in conse- 

 quence of sjiinous scales. Other characters — first D. ray slightly serrated, 

 &c., as given by Cuvier and Valenciennes, Hist, des Pois., t. iv. \). 68, 69 : 

 in this work, the relative length of the 1st and 2nd rays of the 1st D. fin 

 is not mentioned,! nor is it in the descriptions of Bloch, Montagu, Flem- 

 ing, or Jenyns. Mr. Yarrell, not having a specimen for examination, 

 states, on the authority of Risso, ' that the first spinous ray of the fii'st 

 dorsal fin is the longest' (Brit. Fish. vol. i. p. 51), and so figures it; but, in 

 both the specimens under consideration, the 2nd ray of that fin is longest, 

 thus corresponding in this important character with Pennant's figure of 

 the species. See lied Gurnard, in Brit. Zool., vol. iii. pi. 57, Ed. 1776, 

 and pi. 66, Ed. 1812. 



In the Magazine of Natural History for September, 1836 (p. 463). Mr. 

 Couch has given ' a description of the characteristics of a kind of Trijila, 

 hitherto confounded Avith T. Blochii.^ As it is from the description only 

 of this species that the opinion of Mr. Couch was formed, it may be stated, 

 as afi'ording additional evidence of the correctness of his views, that, after 

 a critical comparison of the specimens under consideration with his de- 

 scription, I am satisfied — although the great disparity in size betAveen the 



* The T. Cuculus, BL, appears inadvertently in Mr. Templeton's catalogue of 

 " Irish Vertebrate Animals " (Mag. Nat. Hist., N. S., vol. i. p. 409), the species 

 meant being the T. Pini, Bl. 



t These are generally described as not reaching so for as the vent, but their 

 superior length in the present instance is, probably, consequent on the specimens 

 being so young, as in several other genera of fishes I have remarked the P. fins 

 in very young individuals to be much longer proportionally than they are in 

 adult specimens. 



X Notwitlistanding the trouble taken by Cuv. and Val. in clearing up the 

 synonyma of the Trigla?, and Avhich has been so ably done, there is still a little 

 confusion in one point respecting this species. At p. 70 it is remarked that Risso 

 has Avell described it ; yet on a comparison instituted bctAveen the T- Cnculus 

 and T. Gurnardus, there is nothnig said of a dili'erence hi the length of the rays of 

 the 1st D. fin. The " exactitude " of Pennant is, at the same time, acknoAvledged, 

 although he represents the 2nd ray of this fin to be the longest, as Risso does the 

 1st. From this I should infer that Risso's character of "rarft/s ;>»««« (/o/-sa/« 

 anteriore longissimus " has been overlooked. And, besides, Blocli's iigiu'C of 

 the T. Cuculus, exhibiting the 1st and 2nd rays of this fin of equal length, is 

 criticised by Cuv. and \'al., and no remark made upon this discrepancy. Neither 

 in Bloch's description is it stated tluit this species dilfeis from other Trbjlff- in the 

 relative length of tiicse fin-rays. 



