222 ACANTHOPTERYGII. 



broad, each of the other three about three-fourths of an inch. The side (lateral) 

 line straight along the middle." Gill (Proc. Ac. Nat. Sc. Phil. 1863, p. 228, and 

 1864, p. 205) observes " it is true that Hoy denies ventral and anal fins, but it 

 must be remembered that he was not a scientific ichthyologist ; the ventral scales, 

 as well as the anal fin, had also perhaps been lost, or preoccupied with the idea 

 that his fish was the Lepturus (Trichiurus) Hoy did not carefully look for them. 

 But whether this hypothesis is right or wrong, it is evident that Hoy had neither 

 a Lepturus (Trichiurus) nor Lepidopus before bim." Even admitting Hoy's 

 account to be less accurate than could be desired, we must observe as follows : — 

 the head having " been broken off and quite gone " the ventrals may have shared 

 the same fate, more especially as of the pectoral fins only "the bones and muscles 

 to which they had been attached were perceivable." There was no anal fin, 

 and the tail "ended in a blunt point," while "the thin edge of the belly was 

 closely muricated with small hard points." All the foregoing are identical 

 with what exists in Begalecus. On the other hand, in Buoxymetopon an aual 

 fin is present ; the tail ends in a well- developed forked fin, and the edge of the 

 belly is smooth. The colours in the two forms seem to be much the same. 



Gymnetrus HawJcenii, Bloch, appears to be this fish, which was taken at 

 Newlyn close to Penzance, and incorrectly delineated. Mr. T. Cornish, of 

 Penzance, observes that on the walls of a cottage in the neighbourhood has been 

 discovered the drawing of one of these fish, having the following inscription — 

 "Hawkins gymnetrus," the Ceil conin, or "king of the herrings. This very 

 remarkable fish came on shore (alive) at Newlyn, on Saturday, Feb. 23rd, 1788. 

 Its length without the tail (which it wanted) was 8-§- feet. Its breadth 10-| 

 inches: thickness 2f inches: and weight 401b." (Cornish Telegraph, 1870). 

 Mr. Cornish also observes that there is a trace but not a record of its' occurrence, 

 once subsequently at Marazion in Mount's Bay. 



Varieties. — It is open to question whether more than one form of Begalecus 

 has not been obtained on our shores ; or if the differences which have been 

 remarked upon may not be due to age or accident. Professor Collett (Norges 

 Eiske) has expressed a doubt on this subject, believing that the three forms 

 B. glesne, Banhsii, and grillii are hardly identical. The following are the 

 differences given, which possibly may not be specific but merely within the limits 

 of variation : — 



1. Regalecus glesne or Ophidium glesne, Ascan. B.remipes, Brian. D. 8/126-160, 

 P. 14, A. 1. 



2. Begalecus grillii, or Gymnetrus grillii, Lindr. D. 406, P. 12, V. 1. Height 

 of the body 15, length of the head 18 in the total length. 



To this latter species Dr. Giinther thinks Hancock's specimen taken in 1845 

 may be referred. An example taken near Whitby in Yorkshire, the last week 

 in January, 1880, was 16 feet long, the length of the head 19, and the height of 

 the body from 19 to 24 in that of the total length. The number of rays was not 

 given. It was left among the rocks by a retiring tide, and' in its struggles to 

 escape it broke itself into three parts (C. Elliott, in the Field). This from the 

 proportions would seem to agree with the variety B. grillii. Dr. Gray observed 

 (1849) " I believe there is only a single species' yet found in the North Sea." 



Names. — Banks' oar-fish, after Sir J. Banks and its oar-like appearance. 



Habits. — The haunts of this fish are little known, but those which have been 

 secured are supposed to have left their usual deep sea home due to disease or 

 injury, or may be for depositing their ova ; while being so fragile they must 

 habitually reside where storms are unknown. Their movements are undulating 

 and rapid, consequently when they appear occasionally at the surface leaving a 

 lengthened wave behind, an exaggerated idea of their length is given, thus 

 rendering it possible they may have been one of the sivpposed forms attributed 

 to the "sea serpent." 



Respecting the example secured at Amble, opposite Coquet Island, March 

 3rd, 1876, Mr. Wright observes that when it got into shallow water it turned to 

 make out to sea again, but a man who saw it ran into the water and seized it by 

 the gills, and with some extra help it was dragged on shore. It was stated to 



