942 
SCANDINAVIAN FISHES. 
Lap., cett., Poiss., tab. 16, fig. 2; Id., Naturh. Tidskr. Kblivn, 
ser. 2, vol. II, p. 230; Nilss., Skand. Fna, Fisk., p. 483; 
Gthr, Cat. Brit. Mus., Fish., vol. V, p. 407 ; Id., Deep 
Sea Fish., Chall. Exped., p. 196; Ltkn, Vid. Meddel. Naturh. 
For. Kbhvn 1891, p. 203“. 
Scopelus Mulleri, Coll, (nec Gmel.), Forh. Vid. Selsk. Chrnia 
1874, Tillsegsh., p. 152; 1878, No. 4, p. 23; No. 14, p. 
104; 1879, No. 1, p. 84; Id., N. Nordh. Exped., Zool., 
Fiske, p. 158; (?) Br. -Goode, Bean, Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool., 
Harv. Coll., vol. X, p. 222; Br.-Goode, Fisher., Fisher, 
lndustr. U. S., Dab. 203; Day, Nature, vol. XXXIV, Oct. 
14, 1886, p. 571; (?) A. Agass., Bull. Mus. Comp Zool., 
vol. XV, p. 33, fig. 219; Lillj., Sv., Norg. Fna, Fisk., 
vol. Ill, p. 20. 
The Arctic Scopelus seems never to attain the size 
of the preceding species. Kroyer had specimens from 
Greenland 46 — 96 mm. in length. The only specimen 
we have been able to examine, kindly lent us by the 
Museum of Bergen, has probably measured 77 or 78 
mm., though its length cannot be stated with certainty, 
the caudal tin being broken off short. 
The difference from the Greater Scopelus is mani- 
fested in the very form of the body. The body is 
deepest at the occiput or just behind this point; and 
the depth then decreases almost rectilineally to the base 
of the caudal fin, the profile of the head being arcuate 
both above and below, with the tip of the snout about 
halfway up. The body is also thickest at the occiput 
and shoulders, growing regularly thinner towards the 
base of the caudal fin. The sides of the body are fiat, 
and parallel, back from the eyes. The dorsal margin 
is convex, as well as the top and bottom of the head, 
but the under surface of the abdomen is flat. The 
greatest depth of the body, in proportion to its length, 
is only slightly greater than in the preceding species, 
in our specimen little more than 21 % of the length 
of the body excluding the caudal fin * * * * * 6 ; but the thick- 
ness is perceptibly greater, nearly lo 1 / 2 % of the length 
of the body excluding the caudal fin, so that the great- 
est, thickness is here nearly 2 / 3 (63 1 / 2 %) of the great- 
est depth 0 . The least depth of the body, on the other 
hand, is less, being only slightly more than 1 / 3 (in our 
specimen 35'2 % d ) of the greatest depth. 
Owing to the short form of the body, the length 
of the head is also relatively greater, in our specimen 
29*2 % of the length of the body excluding the caudal 
fin e , in spite of the fact, that the postorbital length of 
the head is distinguished in this comparison just, for 
its smallness, measuring only 15 % of the length of the 
body excluding the caudal fin / , and but slightly more 
than half (in our specimen 51*5 %/) of the entire length 
of the head. The eye, on the other hand, is compara- 
tively larger, its longitudinal and vertical diameters, 
which are equal to each other, measuring Vio °f Mie 
length of the body excluding the caudal fin 7i . In front, 
at the round slope towards the snout, the forehead is 
rather deeply concave, but furnished with the same 
sharp, longitudinal carina at the middle as in the pre- 
ceding species. The gape is smaller and somewhat more 
ascending than in the Greater Scopelus. The difference 
in size is indeed hardly perceptible in proportion to the 
length of the body, the length both of the upper jaw 
and the lower being 1 / 5 of that of the body excluding 
the caudal fin 1 ; but in proportion to the length of the 
head this difference is all the greater, the jaws here ex- 
tending only a little behind the perpendicular from the 
posterior orbital margin. The length of the snout is 
more than Vs (24 % J ) of that of the jaws. The lower 
jaw projects slightly beyond the tip of the snout,, where 
its point, fits, when the mouth is closed, into a cavity. 
The maxillary on each side extends a little further back 
than the intermaxillary, the narrow hind part of which 
lies outside and above the lower margin of the posterior 
extremity of the former, which here expands into a, 
triangle, truncate behind, and thus forms the hindmost 
portion of the margin of the upper jaw. The branches 
of the lower jaw grow even further inwards than in 
° Lutken supposes with Lilljeborg that “Collett has shown that Strom’s communication to O. F. MDller was based upon his 
(Str6m’s) drawing”; whereas it appears, from Collett’s own quotation from Strom’s manuscript, that the said communication must have had 
reference to Maurolicus Midlen Strom sent his figure and description (with Maurolicus characters) to Muller “more than 20 years before 
1791” (see Skrivt. Naturh. Selsk. 1793, p. 15); but did not discover his first specimen of Myctoplium glaciale until 1774 (according to the 
manuscript quoted by Collett). 
6 Answering to 2 0 1 / 2 % 'in the preceding species. 
c Answering to 57 — 58 % in the preceding species. 
d Answering to about 46 % in the preceding species. 
e Answering to 27 — 26 % in the preceding species. 
V Answering to 18 — 16 °/ 0 in the preceding species. 
g Answering to .62 — 66 % in the preceding species. 
h Answering to 7—6 °/o in the preceding species. 
1 Answering to 21 — 2lY 2 % in the preceding species. 
J Answering to 15 — 18 % in the preceding species. 
