SEA FISHERIES LABORATORY. ale 7% 
were Solea lutea and only one of them was a true sole 
(Solea vulgaris ).” 
It may be of service in helping others to distinguish 
solenettes from half grown soles, if I give here the chief 
distinguishing features of the two species. Good figures 
of them will be found in Day’s ‘‘ British Fishes,” Pls. CVI 
and CVIII, and in Cunningham’s “ Monograph on the 
pole,’ Pls.. I—VII. 
(1) On the under side of the snout in Solea vulgaris 
the villi or little white tags are closely crowded together 
and irregular in arrangement, while in Solea lutea (solen- 
ette) the villi form fringes round the edges of quadrangular 
depressions of the skin, and so give rise to a reticulate 
pattern. 
(2) The general colour is darker in S. vulgaris, more of 
a reddish brown in S. lutea; moreover in the latter the 
dorsal and anal fins are marked transversely by numerous 
narrow dark stripes, which are not present in the common 
sole. These stripes are caused by every 6th or 7th fin-ray 
being of a deep black colour, and this series of narrow 
bars across the fins is on the whole the most readily 
noticed reliable character by which the two species can be 
distinguished in this neighbourhood. 
(3) In S. vulgaris the dorsal fin has from 83 to 90 rays, 
the anal fin has from 66 to 74, and the scales of the lateral 
line are from 149 to 166in number. In S. lutea the dorsal 
fin has from 69 to 77 rays, the anal fin has from 53 to 638, 
and the scales of the lateral line are from 62 to 68 in 
number. These characters hold good for immature fishes 
as well as adults. 
(4) In S. vulgaris the scales from any where about the 
middle of the body have from 10 to 16 radiating spines on 
their posterior border, while in S. lutea a scale from the 
_same region has from 16 to 22 radiating spines (PI. IV.). 
