688 
SCANDINAVIAN FISHES. 
them attach themselves in some way with the tail to 
the parent fish; but in this expectation he was dis- 
appointed. After the lapse of six days the fish showed 
signs of weakness, and some of the eggs began to 
acquire a sickly appearance. Life endured, however, for 
some days more, and on the morning of the ninth day 
of the captivity Fries observed three young specimens 
at the surface. Later in the day the fourth appeared, 
and on the following morning two more; but no more 
eggs were hatched. The whole mass of eggs now pre- 
sented a half-decomposed appearance, became detached, 
together with the adhesive layer of cells, from the body, 
and broke up piecemeal. The fish died on the same 
day towards evening. The larvae lived seven days, and 
during this time their size increased from 9 to 15 1 / 2 mm. 
The first point that surprised Fries, was the be- 
haviour of the young amongst themselves and towards 
the parent fish. They swam in an upright position, 
careless of each other, and paying still less attention to 
their father, Avho lay at the bottom and was equally 
oblivious of them. In order to elucidate this discrepancy 
from Ekstrom’s account of the young of this genus, 
Fries began to examine the fry more minutely, and 
found their structure to present the appearance shown 
in our figure (Plate XXIX, fig. 4, a). The whole body 
is white and transparent, the spinal column and the 
intestine within the abdominal cavity shining through. 
The head measures about V 6 of the length of the body. 
The length of the snout, which curves upwards, is greater 
in proportion to that of the head than in older speci- 
mens. It is also worthy of remark that, whereas in all 
adult Syngncitliince the margin of the opercula is united 
by a membrane and by the general dermal covering to 
the shoulder girdle, leaving on each side of the occiput 
only a small foramen for the passage of the respiratory 
water, in the young on the other hand this margin is 
entirely free, the gill-openings thus being large, as in 
the generality of fishes. The lower figure shows this 
point with tolerable distinctness. The vent, though it oc- 
cupies its right place in relation to the dorsal fin, lies 
nearer the tip of the tail than in older specimens, only 
a little in front of the middle of the body. The plates 
of the body seem as yet undeveloped; but when the 
young specimen is examined from above, we see along 
each side of the body a projecting row of fine teeth, 
which must be the tips of the transverse vertebral pro- 
cesses that in older specimens support the dermal rings 
of plates. Fries counted, as far as he could judge, 18 of 
these points in front of, and at least 50 behind the vent. 
The pectoral fins are small, but distinct, with widened, 
somewhat rounded tip. Their motion is extraordinarily 
brisk, but the rays are extremely rudimentary. The 
true dorsal fin is distinct, but the traces of the inci- 
pient rays are only faint. Along the dorsal margin 
behind this fin, round the tip of the tail, and along the 
ventral margin forward to the vent, runs the embryonic 
vertical fin, the chief organ of locomotion in the fry. 
Such is Fries’s description of his find; and the equip- 
ment of the larvae with comparatively well-developed 
organs of motion explains, it is true, their capability 
of independent life. But here this explanation stops, 
for the larvae of the preceding genus may be equally 
well equipped in this respect, though they still take 
refuge in the marsupium of the male. 
The geographical range of the Worm Pipefish, as 
far as we know at present, does not extend so far north 
as that of the preceding species. Storm never found it 
in Trondhjem Fjord; but on the coast of the Govern- 
ment of Bergen it has been met with at several spots, 
according to Collett. In Christiania Fjord it is not 
rare. Off the Weather Islands and outside Gullmar 
Fjord it has been taken on several occasions. Kroyer 
and Peter Muller have found it on the north coast 
of Zealand (Hornbaek and Hellebaek), but further south 
in the Sound and in the Baltic it is unknown. All 
round Great Britain and Ireland it is common enough, 
according to Day. This is also the case on the north- 
west coast of France, according to Moreau, at least 
at certain spots; and according to the same author it 
occurs, though rarely, even in the Bay of Biscay. No 
instance is known of its occurrence in the Mediter- 
ranean. 
