RED MULLET. 
63 
7 'rigla 1 et 2; Art., Gen. Pise., p. 43; Syn., pp. 71 et 72. 
Mullus barbatus, Cicer., Attic., 22; Lin., Syst. Nat., ed. X, 
tom. I, p. 299; Cuv., Val., Hist. Nat. Poiss ., vol. Ill, p. 442, 
tab. 70; Gthr, Cat. Brit. Mas., Fish., vol. I, p. 401; 
Steind., Stzber. Akad. Wiss. Wien, LVI, i, (1867) p. 635; 
Day, Fish. G:t Brit., Irel., part. I, p. 22, tab. VIII. 
Mullus surmuletus, Lin., Syst. Nat., ed. X, torn. I, p. 300; Retz., 
Fn. Sure. Lin., p. 341; Cuv., Val., 1. c., p. 433; Nilss., 
Proclr. Ichth. Sc., p. 89; Kr0y., (Den guidstribede Mulls') 
Damn. Fiske, part. I, p. 72; Nilss., Skand. Fn., Fisk., p. 
47; Gthr, ]. c.; Coll., Forh. Vid. Selsk. Christ., 1874, Til- 
lffigsh., p. 17; Malm ( Giddmulle ) Gbgs, Boh. Fn., p. 382; 
Winth., Zool. Dan., Fiske, p. 5, tab. 1, fig. 5; Id., Naturh. 
Tidskr. Kbhvn., ser. 3, vol. XII (1879), p. 7; Lillj., Sv., 
Norg. Fiskar, vol. I, p. 203; MSb., LIcke, Fische der Ost- 
see, p. 34. 
Mullus dubius , Malm, Ofvers. Vet. -Akad. Forh. 1852, p. 224, 
tab. Ill, fig. 1. 
Obs. Salvianus distinguished between the true and the large 
Red Mullet; and this distinction, in spite of the protest of Brunnich “, 
was preserved by science with Cuvier’s sanction, until Gunther in 
his Catalogue (p. 402) declared some doubts of its correctness. Sub- 
sequently, Steindachner, in his account of observations made on the 
fishes of Spain and Portugal, was enabled by a large quantity of ma- 
terials for comparison to declare this distinction of species untenable. 
The first-named “species” (Mullus barbalus, auett.) was said to have 
a more vertical profile owing to the steep slope of the snout from 
the forehead, and in conjunction herewith the membranous hind mar- 
gin of the maxillary bones was said to reach farther backwards, some 
distance behind the perpendicular from the anterior margin of the 
eye. The larger “species” on the other hand, the Gold-striped Mullet 
(Mullus surmuletus, auett.) was said to have a more elongated snout, 
and the maxillary bones were said not to extend so far backwards 
with regard to the situation of the eye. Among 75 specimens, how- 
ever, Steindachner found that several were intermediate forms that 
might equally well have been referred to either of these two “spe- 
cies”; and in these specimens the longitudinal, yellow streaks were 
common to both “species”. In the same manner Costa * * * * * 6 , though 
without acknowledging it, had already come to the same conclusion, 
for he figured a specimen of Mullus surmuletus with the maxillary 
bones extending considerably under the eyes, and the head of a spe- 
cimen of Mullus barbaius c with the snout quite as elongated as in 
M. surmuletus. In two specimens of Mullus barbatus (according to 
Hedenborg) from the Bosphorus, I find the snout of the one, a male, 
comparatively greatly elongated, and the maxillary bones far from 
extending backwards to the perpendicular from the anterior margin 
of the eye, while the snout of the other, a female, is more vertical 
in profile, and the end of the maxillary bones is almost in the said 
perpendicular: — in the former the interorbital space is plain, in the 
latter distinctly concave* 7 . Thus no difference of species can well 
be maintained between these forms. The opinion of Gronovius**, that 
Mullus barbatus was the male and Mullus surmuletus the female of 
the same species, has also proved untenable- 7 ': — thus not even a 
distinction of sex on this ground can be maintained. Still it seems 
undeniable that the two forms, as such, are generally distinct in nature, 
— a fact best proved by the circumstance that only the one form 
has been met with on the coasts of Scandinavia. An explanation of 
the relation between them seems suggested by the result of observa- 
tions made on the individual development of these fishes. In the 
young specimens (fig. 17) described by Malm 17 , the profile of the 
Fig. 17. Young of Mullus barbatus. Life size. After Malm. 
head is almost like that of the Cod ; and from this pointed and com- 
paratively long form the interorbital space rises during the growth 
of the fish, until it reaches the Midlus-ioxm. The form most deve- 
loped in this respect is, therefore, Mullus barbatus; but here we are 
met by the strange fact that it is highly seldom or perhaps never 
that we find specimens of this form as large as the larger specimens 
of M. surmuletus. Gunther 7 *, it is true, cites one specimen of M. 
barbatus 14 inches in length, which is also the largest measurement 
given by Willugiiby* for M. surmuletus. According to Moreau 7 , 
however, the latter form may attain a length of 400 mm., and Day* 
mentions a specimen, presumably of this form, which was taken at 
Mevagissey, 17 inches in length. Thus Mullus surmuletus must be 
regarded as a larger form, which has been stunted in the develop- 
ment of one of the strangest outer peculiarities of this genus. 
The body is oblong and slightly compressed, the 
greatest thickness, as well as the greatest depth, lies be- 
hind the head. The greatest depth, which is less than or 
(in large specimens) equal to the length of the head, varies 
between 24 and 21 % of the length of the body from 
the tip of the snout to the end of the middle rays in 
the caudal tin'. The least depth of the body (that of 
the tail) varies between 9 and 10 % of the length™. 
a Ichthyologia Massiliensis (1768) p. 72. 
b Fauna del regno di Napoli, Pesci, part. I, (1850) Triglia, p. 13, Spieg. della tav. IX, 
c . . . “perche se ne distingua la forma comparativamente a quella della T. maggiore”: 1. 
d Cf. Lilljeborg, 1. c. 
e Gronov. Cat. Fish., ed. Gray, p. 108. 
/ Cf. Steindachner, 1. c. 
y Ofvers. Vet. -Akad. Forh. 1852, 1. c. and Gbgs, Boh. Fn., pp. 383 & 384. 
7 * Cat., 1. c. 
* Hist. Pise. ed. Raji, Oxford 1686, p. 285. 
7 Hist. Nat. Poiss. Fr., vol. II, p. 244. 
* 1. c., p. 24. 
1 Maximum in 
Average ,, 
Minimum ,, 
m Maximum ,, 
Average 
Minimum 
5 
11 
11 
specimens from 
11 
I 1 9? 
II V 
11 11 
11 11 
142 to 252 
)} 11 11 
11 ?! 11 
mms. in length 24.2 fo 
„ „ „ 22.9 $ 
„ „ „ 21.2 % 
11 11 11 
11 11 11 
11 11 11 
11 11 
n ii 
9.9 % 
9.5 % 
8.9 % 
fig. 
c. 
3. 
11 11 
