56 
SCANDINAVIAN FISHES. 
Genus SPARTJS. 
The front-teeth of the jaws form a card of pointed or somewhat obtuse, curved or straight ( conical ) teeth, largest 
in the outer row; back-teeth obtuse, rounded molars in two or more rows. Cheeks scaly. 
By this definition, as in Bleeker“ and most re- 
cently in Jordan and Gilbert 6 , the genus Spams of 
Artedi is more nearly restored to its original signi- 
fication, as it is made to include Cuvier’s and Va- 
lenciennes’ genera Chrysophrys , Pagrus and Pagellus. 
Steindachner 6 proved that the generic distinction 
between Chrysophrys and Pagrus was untenable, but 
he did not restore the generic name of Artedi and 
Linnaeus, and herein he is followed by Day 12 . But 
Bleeker followed up this train of thought, which may, 
however, be held to have originated with Valenciennes, 
who cited 6 the intermediate forms which unite these 
three genera. 
Obs. One of the clearest proofs of the correctness of this 
combination of Pagellus and Pagrus as well, seems to me to re- 
sult from a closer examination of the characters of Sparus mor- 
myrus, the species that LiNNiEUS has described under the name of 
Sp. hurta-f, as is shown by the type-specimen from Museum Adolphi 
Friderici, which still exists in the Royal Museum. This specimen — 
US' 3 1 
with R. hr. 6; I). ; A. — ; P. 2 + 14; V. — ; C. x + 15 + x; 
12 10 5 
0 
L. lat. 60 1. 62; L. tr. hi* — has cardiform, but firm and ob- 
12 ’ 
tuse front-teeth, in the anterior part of the jaws somewhat pointed 
in the outer row only, where they are larger and comparatively far 
apart, almost like the lateral teeth in Sparus pagrus, but in the 
posterior part of the jaws obtuse. In the lower jaw, too, all the 
teeth are molar-like, except the two first, which are pointed and 
project slightly forward (exserti: Lin.). In the upper jaw the 
four or five front-teeth in the outer row are more pointed than the 
others and separated from them by an interval (superiores 4, quasi 
canini*: Lin.). Day’s assertion (1. c., p. 35) as to the relation be- 
tween Pagrus and Pagellus, that the latter has much smaller molars 
than the former, entirely falls to the ground in the case of this spe- 
cimen, as the posterior inner molar teeth in the upper jaw are com- 
paratively large and remarkably broad. That this specimen, the hurta 
of Linnaeus, is not of the same species as Risso’s Aurata hurta\ 
need scarcely be remarked, in spite of the fact that such a conclu- 
sion apparently finds some support in Linnasus’s incorrect statement 
of the number of rays in the anal fin 4 . Still we must notice that 
the name hurta , which otherwise seems to be unknown, may well 
have arisen through a slip of Linnaws’s pen (instead of aurata ), for 
together with the above-mentioned specimen of Sparus mormyrus 
there was in the jar signed by himself, a specimen of Sp. aurata, 
210 mm. in length. Perhaps Linnaws found both of them in Mu- 
seum Adolphi Friderici sent in with the name Aurata illegibly writ- 
ten; and his description, too, seems to point to a confusion of notes 
on the characters of both specimens, though the description of the co- 
louring (transverse bands on the body) clearly refers to Sp. mormyrus. 
The genus Sparus of Artedi, which from Cu- 
vier’s time up to Bleeker’s had been erased from the 
system, may thus be restored with complete justice, the 
more so, as the case in this family is remarkably like 
that which we have seen in the Labridce, where it has 
also been proposed, on account of the jaw-teeth being set 
in one or several rows to split up the old genus Labrus. 
The genus Sparus, to which Ave may refer 37 
species, adopted and described by Gunther in his Cata- 
logue, is spread over the Avliole geographical range of 
the family. Off the coast of Scandinavia only two 
species have been met Avith, both belonging to the group 
which has borne the name Pagellus , i. e., Avith cardi- 
form teeth and no canines in the front of the jaws. 
In both species the pectoral fins are longer than the 
distance from the insertion of the ventrals to the be- 
ginning of the anal, and the horizontal diameter of the 
eye greater than the breadth of the snout across the 
‘articulation-knobs’ of the maxillaries; but in the one 
(, Sparus erythrinus ) this breadth is more than x / 3 of 
the base of the anal fin, while in the other ( Sparus 
centrodontus) it is less. 
° Atl. Ichth., Tome VIII, p. 106. 
b Syn. Fish. N. Amer., Bull. U. S. Nat. Mus., N:o 16, p. 555. 
c Stzber. Akad. Wiss. Wien, LVI, i (1867), p. 657. 
d Fish. G:t Brit., Irel ., I, p. 30. 
e Cuv., Val., Hist. Nat. Poiss., vol. VI, p. 141. 
f Syst. Nat., ed. X, tom. I, p. 279; Mus. Ad. Fr tom. II prodr., p. 73. 
g The third and fourth spinous rays in the dorsal fin are the longest and are equal in length (tertio longo, Lin.). Their length = 
1 / 3 of the greatest depth of the body and is about equal to the height of the anterior preorbital bone. 
h Vertically from the insertion of the ventral fins. 
1 Perhaps, however, LiNNiEus’s description of the teeth is taken, at least in part, from a specimen of Sparus aurata (see below). 
j Hist. Nat. Eur. Mer., Tome III, p. 358. 
k 3 / 9 , i. e. 6 soft rays instead of 10. 
