224 ACANTHOPTERTGII. 



Tenth group. — Acanthopterygii mugiliformes. 



Two separate dorsal fins, the anterior short, or else composed of weak spines. 

 Ventrals abdominal, with one spine and five rays. 



Pallas, Cuvier, and others have pointed out the close relationship which exists 

 between the Atherines and the Mullets. 



Family, XXIV— ATHERINIDiE, Giinther. 



Branchiostegals five or six : pseudobranchiae present. Four gills : gill-opening 

 wide. Body more or less elongated and somewhat subcylindrical. Eyes lateral. 

 Gape of mouth of moderate width : cleft not very deep. Teeth minute. Two 

 separate dorsal fins, the first with feeble spines, and less in number than the rays 

 of the second, which is similar to the anal : ventral abdominal, with one spine 

 and five rays. Scales cycloid and of medium size. Lateral-line indistinct. 

 Pyloric appendages, when present, few. Air-bladder present. 



Oeographical distribution. — These pretty little fishes, furnished with a burnished 

 silvery lateral band, are distributed throughout nearly all the seas of temperate 

 and tropical regions. They are not only taken in the littoral region, but even in 

 estuaries and tidal rivers when not far removed from the sea, while some have 

 been acclimatized in fresh waters. 



Genus I. — Atheeina, Artedi. 



Pseudomugil, Kner. 



Branchiostegals five or six : pseudohrancMce present. Body somewhat subcylin- 

 drical, with slightly compressed sides. Snout more or less obtuse : cleft of m,outh 

 oblique, extending to as far as below the front edge of the eye. Teeth very minute, 

 but usually present on jaws, palate, and tongue. Ventrals at some distance behind 

 the pectorals. Scales of moderate size. Air-bladder present. Pyloric appendages, 

 when present, few. Ova comparatively very large. A silvery lateral band. 



These are gregarious fishes mostly residing in the littoral regions, but whether 

 more than one species exists on our shores is doubtful. Dr. Giinther in his 

 Catalogue (iii, p. 395) observes of Atheriiia Boyeri "according to Couch, occa- 

 sionally on the coast of Cornwall," and in his Introduction to the Study of 

 Fishes, he states, " A. presbyter and A. Boyeri occur on the British coast." * But 

 no British example appears to exist in the national collection. 



Atherina presbyter was reported by Meynell, in 1844, as taken in Bridlington 

 Bay, Yorkshire. Montagu and Yarrell considered it absent from the east coast of 

 England, where its place is filled by the true smelt, Osmerus eperlanus, which in 

 its turn is asserted to be absent from the south coast. The foregoing, it would 

 appear, cannot be accepted as literally correct if Gurney, who has reported it from 

 Lowestoft, and Lowe from the Norfolk estuary, have not likewise been in error. 

 It is evidently rare on the east coast, which may be due to the nature of the 

 ground, or absence of appropriate food. In the Field, May 21st, 1881, it is 

 observed " Sand smelts run larger in Cornish deep water harbours than further 

 east as a rule." 



* Dr. Giinther (Intr. Study of Fish. p. 500) observes of the Atherines, that " the young, for 

 some time after they are hatched, cling together in dense masses, and in nnmbers almost Incredible. 

 The inhabitants of the Mediterranean coast of France call these newly hatched Atherines ' Nonnat ' 

 (unborn)" — (perhaps an observation from Cuvier and Val. x, p. 417.) But as such a phenomenon 

 has not been observed on our shores, I may mention that the nonnats are a form of (ioby, Aphia 

 pellucida, see p. 169, ante. 



