IN THE QUEENSLAND MUSEUM. 
25 
describes it as having 42 or 43 lateral scales, a number which 
Giinther afterwards verified from an examination of Cantor's 
specimens then deposited in the British Museum. There is, there- 
fore, we contend, no evading the fact that the fish figured by 
Russell and subsequently described by Cantor and Giinther has at 
least 42 scales between the upper angle of the opercle and the base 
of the caudal, and is the true Mugil cunnesius of Cuvier and 
Valenciennes, whose specimens came from the Moluccas and 
Bombay. Meanwhile, however, Bleeker in 1852, disregarding the 
evidence of Russell's figure and the descriptions of the French 
savants and of Cantor, applied the name 31uqil cunnesius to a 
Mayalan mullet having but 35 series of scales, and eight years later 
persisted in this mistake. Tn the year following Bleeker's second 
publication Gunther's classification of the Mtj(Iilid;e appeared in 
the third volume of the " British Museum Catalogue of Fishes," and 
the author, perceiving the glaring inconsistency of Bleeker's pro- 
ceeding, very properly separated the large-scaled form as Mugil 
longimanus. It seemed now that the relationship between the two 
species was fully delimited, and doubtless such w 7 ould have been the 
case but for the subsequent action of Dr. Bay. This author in his 
" Fishes of Malabar," 1865, following Cantor and Giinther, described 
M. cunnesius as having 41 to 43 lateral series of scales and in the 
same work applies to the fish previously called 31. longimanus by 
Giinther the name Mugil engeli, Bleeker, a fish with but 33 or 34 
series of scales. In his great work on the " Fishes of India" issued 
eleven years later, he, for some reason which he neglected to explain, 
altered his opinion and described and figured 31. cunnesius as having 
from 33 to 35 series of scales only, and adds to its synonymy M. 
longimanus and his 31. engeli. That, however, he was m considerable 
doubt as to the propriety of his action seems probable from the 
confusion which is apparent in that part of the synonymy following 
Mugil cunnesius. We have not at hand a copy of the " Fauna of 
British India," but we have no doubt that the error is perpetuated 
there, since Waite in his recent " Synopsis " includes 31. cunnesius 
among the fishes of New South Wales, while omitting 31. longimanus; 
in this he has evidently followed Day, not having an example on 
which to form an unbiased judgment. As far back as 1879 
Steindachner recorded a specimen of 31. longimanus from Port 
Jackson, where, however, all the efforts of half a dozen enthusiastic 
marine biologists have failed to secure a second specimen. In the 
following year Ivlunzinger reported its occurrence in Cleveland Bay, 
Middle Queensland. Both these latter records properly belong to 
the form, which we have here separated as Mugil nortoni, the true 
Indo-Malayan 31. longimanus never having, in our opinion, been 
