KUNGL. SV. VET. AKADEMIENS HANDLINGAK. 13AJMU 40. N:u 5. 91 



Fishes. 



The first knowledge about tbe fish-fauna of South Georgia was obtained by 

 the German Expedition 1882 — 83. The material brought to Europé this way was 

 worked out by Fischer (2) who had the opportunity to state that, with the exception 

 of two well known and circumpolar Nototheniids viz. Notothenia coriiceps Richard- 

 son and Harpagifer bispinis Richardson, all the remaining were, more or less com- 

 pletely, new to the science. Fischer (2) thus described 6 new species, two of which 

 were types of new genera. These were the following Nototheniids Chcenichthys geor- 

 giernas (låter called Parachcenichthys georgiernas), Notothenia marmorata, N. angusti- 

 frons, (= N. marionensis Gunther subsp. '?), and further Sclerocottus (n. g.) schraderi, 

 Gymnelichtys (n. g.) antaretieus and Liparis steineni. 



Through the investigations of the Swedish Expedition 1902 very important 

 additions were made to the South Georgian ichthys (10). Fischer's new Nototheniids 

 were refound, but not his other new species. Instead of them, not less than 10 spe- 

 cies were added to the list of South Georgia fishes. Out of those the following are 

 to be regarded as geographic varieties of species found in other localities before, 

 Trematomus hansoni georgianus, T. bernacchii vicarius, Notothenia mizops nudifrons 

 and Murcenolepis marmoratus microps. The remaining six were described by the 

 present author (10) as entirely new and included the type of a very interesting new 

 genus (Artedidraco) . They were all of them Nototheniids except one (the last in 

 the following list), and they were named Notothenia dubia, N. larseni, N. gibberi- 

 frons, Champsocephalus gunnari, Artedidraco mirus, and Careproctus georgianus. 



Through Sörling's collection a new species of Ghcenichthys, described below, is 

 added to the litoral fauna of South Georgia which thus counts 19 known members, 

 10 of which are endemic. 



Two pelagic species collected by Sörling off the coast may not be regarded 

 as strictly South Georgian. 



The additions do not alter, but strengthen the opinion about the ichthys of 

 South Georgia expressed by the present author in a paper (10) printed last year 



from which may be quoted the following passage: »These facts prove 



that, if the circumpolar and widely distributed fishes which are found as well in the 



