BY J. DOUGLAS OGILBY, 
1767 
2, C. CRENiDENS, Klunz. Queensland. I have still (v. Proc. 
Linn. Soc. iT. S. Wales, X. 1885, p. ) grave doubts as 
to the propriety of separating this from the preceding 
species, the more so tint in our example of C. acutus the 
fold on the upper is almost equally as long as that on the 
lower jaw, and it thus forms, so far at least as that point 
is concerned, a connecting link between the two fishes. In 
the absence however of other specimens for comparison I 
do not feel justified in absolutely rejecting Dr. Klunzinger’s 
species. 
3, C. MUELLERi, 21. & H. Cape York, Q. (2£acleay 2his.). 
4, C. ACUTIDENS, Riipp. Torres Straits ( 2Iacleay 2Ius.J. 
Note on C. tricuspid atus. Day. 
In his ‘Fishes of India,’ p. 713, Mr. Francis Day mentions that 
the British Museum contains a large South Australian 
example of this supposititious species. In the Australian 
Museum collection there are two half-grown mounted 
specimens— labelled Odontaspis taurus — with distinct pits 
at the root of the caudal fin, and in which, owing perhaps 
to the mounting, I am unable to detect any trace of 
spiracles. I have also seen and examined in the flesh a 
freshly-caught specimen, which had, along with the pre- 
caudal pits, plainly visible spiracles. In all other points 
these examples agree precisely with Odontaspis taurus, 
and I cannot therefore see my way at present towards 
recognizing Mr. Day’s species. Prof. McCoy has also 
noticed ( Frodr. Zool. Viet., dec. VII. p. 13 ) the occa- 
sional presence of the pre-caudal pits in Odontaspis. In the 
recent specimen mentioned above the nictitating mem- 
brane was jiresent, a character of which Mr. Day has 
unfortunately omitted all mention from his description, 
doul^tlesH because he considered it unnecessary in a genus 
which always jjossesses these protective appendages to the 
eye. This variability however has the etl'ect of raising a 
