LUMPEIfUS LAMPETEIFORMIS ON THE COAST OE SCOTLAND. 39 



under notice and sent it to Dr. Day, who at once recognized it 

 as L. lampetriformis, although differing very much in the form 

 of the caudal fin from Prof. Macintosh's specimen, the dif- 

 ference being that Macintosh's specimen had the outer caudal 

 rays elongated beyond the central ones for nearly half the length 

 of the caudal fin ; while in my specimen the central ray was 

 longest, the others decreasing in length on each side of it, thus 

 giving the tail a lanceolate form, or, as Collett says, an " acumi- 

 nate form." Strangely enough, all my specimens have the same 

 form of tail. On receipt of this information, the fi.^h was for- 

 warded to Cheltenham for examination by Dr. Day ; and in due 

 course I received a note from him stating that the specimen was 

 a female Lumpenus, while that of Prof. Mcintosh was an old male ; 

 and this he considered would explain the difference in the form of 

 the tail. 



The occurrence of this specimen Dr. Day recorded in ' Nature ' 

 for July 9th, 1885. Thus stood the matter until March 25th, 

 1886, on which date a second example came to my hand, and on 

 March 31st eleven more ; while from April 1st till May 31st fifty- 

 seven specimens have made up my findings. This will indicate 

 pretty clearly that the species is not so rare upon the coast of 

 Britain as we were at first disposed to think. 



In general appearance, Lumpenus approaches very nearly 

 to that of our common Blennies, Centronotus gunnellus and 

 Zoarces viviparus, to which it is closely allied ; but on close exa- 

 mination it is seen to differ from them considerably, both in 

 external colouring, fin arrangement, and internal organization. 

 To give a minute description of the external appearance of Lum- 

 penus is quite unnecessary, as this has been done by Dr. Day 

 in the article already mentioned, as well as by Collett. My 

 purpose, then, is merely to note the points where the three 

 species differ and where they agree, in so far as I have been able 

 to observe the same. Comparing Lumpenus with the Spotted 

 Gunnel {Centronotus gunnellus'), we find in both the spinous 

 dorsal fin, the number of rays in Centronotus being 76 to 78, 

 while in Lumpenus the number is 72 to 74 ; the latter number I 

 have only once observed. In Centronotus the ventral fins have 

 disappeared, and are represented by two short stout spines ; in 

 Lumpenus, however, these fins are comparatively well developed, 

 each having one spinous ray and four soft ones. In the matter 



