BY DR. E. P. RAMSAY AND J. DOUGLAS OGILBY. 15 



specimens even smaller comparatively, the teeth much fewer in 

 number, and in our specimen only a few of the dorsal spines — 

 third to sixth — equal to the diameter of the eye, those behind 

 them becoming gradually shorter, but, like the Lord Howe 

 examples, there is a distinct membrane joining each pair of spines, 

 with the exception of the last few. 



Referring to the scales. Dr. Giinther says " each is deeply 

 striated, with live or six keels, each keel terminating in a minute 

 point ;" our Mediterranean specimen has seven or eight visible 

 keels, each ending in a point, but with evident indications of 

 having been spinate along their whole length, these however 

 ha\ing almost disappeared with age. 



It is, however, evident that the discrepancies between Dr. 

 Giinther's and our description are not of such magnitude as to 

 cause any doubt of their specific identity, and this species is 

 therefore the true Tetragonurus cuvieri of Risso. 



We have now however to compare our Pacific specimens with 

 Lowe's detailed description of his Atlantic one, taken off an island 

 of very similar formation to Lord Howe Island, and we must 

 again draw attention to the fact that his specimen is exactly 

 intermediate in size between ours and Dr. Giinther's, and we 

 should therefore expect to find the comparative measurements also 

 intermediate. 



Tliis, however, is not the case, as in almost every particular the 

 specimens are absolutely identical, the slightly more forward 

 position of the pectoral fin in Lowe's fish, and its smaller com- 

 parative size, together with the more numerou.s maxillary teeth 

 constituting diflerences hardly worthy of mention. 



Judging from these data we are therefore of opinion that it is 

 impossible to separate the Pacific from the Atlantic form, and 

 that until specimens intermfuliate Ix'tween these and th(^ Mediter- 

 ranean fish have l)een examined by a competent authority in the 

 light now tliiuwn on the subject by this paper, we cannot endor-se 

 tiie opinion that the oceanic form is identical with that of Ris.so. 



