208 



Appendices to f^o^rtk Annual Report 



A perusal of Dr Giinther's accurate and careful remarks* on the two 

 forms before mentioned strengthens the doubt above expressed. 



The Weevers are well-known to fishermen from the wounds inflicted by 

 their opercular spines. A most interesting account of the structure of the 

 parts, and the result of an experiment with the living form, is given by- 

 Prof. Allman.f 



Shanny. — The comparative rarity of this fish between tide marks at 

 St Andrews is now remarkable. Formerly numerous fine examples could 

 readily be obtained ; now only a few young are occasionally procured. 

 It has been suggested by some fishermen that the boys seek it more 

 eagerly, but some other cause for its rarity is doubtless present. It is not 

 uncommon at several parts along the East Coast, and Mr Sim finds it 

 frequently at Aberdeen. 



Cod. — On the whole, this species has been more abundant this year 

 (1885) than last, both in regard to liners and trawlers. The young forms 

 off the Castle and other rocks, however, were less frequently procured 

 than last summer. They seemed to be less numerous. 



Haddock. — The young haddocks do not appear to keep company with 

 the young cod, coal-fishes, and pollack off the rocks close inshore. As in 

 the case of the cod there is still a hiatus in their history between the 

 period of leaving the surface (after the embryos escape from the pelagic 

 egg), and their capture as little fishes from 2 to 6 inches in length. 



Bib or Whiting-Pout and Poor or Power Cod. — In the standard works 

 on Fishes in our country, and in the literature of fishes generally since the 

 time of Linnaeus, two species are described in close proximity, viz., the 

 whiting-pout and the poor or power cod. The latter is described as di- 

 minutive in size, seldom exceeding 6 to 7 inches in length, and less deep 

 than the former when of the same length. The barbel on the chin is 

 shorter, and there are minor differences in the length of the fin-rays and in 

 the position of the anal fin. 



In the most recent work on British Fishes, viz., that of Mr Francis 

 Day, it would appear that the elaborate descriptions in regard to eye^ teeth, 

 fins, scales, lateral line, and colours are not always so satisfactory as they 

 seem, for they fail to show the relationship existing between the adult and 

 young stages of the same species. The author indeed observes under the 

 head of the poor cod : ' Winther places G. luscus as a variety of this fish, 

 ' but G. minutus is not nearly so deep in the body, while its vent is placed 

 ' below the last rays of the first dorsal fin, and the free portion of its tail 

 ' is more extended. I have not had the opportunity of investigating both 

 * sexes of these two species of fish.' This remark indicates some uncer- 

 tainty on the subject, and my own experience of the species has now led 

 me to conclude that what has been described as the poor or power cod 

 (Gadus minutus) by several authors is only the young of the bib. Con- 

 siderable change occurs in the outline of the fins and in the increase of 

 pigment as the adult condition is reached, but a large series from various 

 parts of the British seas gives little doubt as to the identity of the two 

 forms. 



It would appear that the confusion in regard to the two species has 

 partly arisen from an examination of preserved specimens. This is probably 

 one of the reasons why they are separated in Dr Giinther's valuable and 

 laborious catalogue of the Fishes in the British Museum. J 



It is remarkable that very few males of this fish were procured last 

 season, and this out of a large number of examples. 



* Catalogue of Fishes (Brit. Mus.), II., pp. 233 and 236 (1860). 

 t Ann. Nat. Hist., vol. vi,, pp. 161-165 (1841). 

 : Vol. iv., pp. 335 and 336 (1882). 



