BRAMOIDS. 
81 
certainly apply here, too. Only the more elongated (lower) form of the 
body might perhaps suggest a difference of species. But in a genus 
which in this respect is as variable as Brama. we can scarcely draw 
a difference of species from the higher or lower form of the body 
when the difference is so small and measured in only one single spe- 
cimen. Nor can I find any other reason for distinguishing Johnson’s 
Brama princeps from this species than the fact that in the large spe- 
cimens from Madeira (686 — 838 mm. long, excluding the lobes of the 
caudal fin) examined by Johnson, there was “a broad keel on each side 
of the middle portion of the tail”. This discovery is especially im- 
portant as it clearly refers these forms to the group of the Scombro- 
morph families, but it does not therefore preclude the possibility of 
this being a character of age which has not yet appeared in the spe- 
cimens described under the names of Br. longipinnis and Br. Raschii , 
the largest of which, Lowe’s specimen, is 463 mm. long. Thus in 
Scandinavia as well as in the Atlantic off Madeira, we should have 
to distinguish two species, which are called by the fishermen of Ma- 
deira “Freira” (Br. Raii ) and “Freira do alto” (Br. longipinnis). 
From the changes due to age in the relative length of the dorsal 
j and anal fins, which are given below, it seems quite possible that the 
-J: young specimen figured by(Towi?in fig. 2, plate IV of his much-quoted 
work belonged to this speciesptnough to judge by the figure this circum- 
stance, had it occurred in a more fullgrown specimen, would certainly 
have referred it to the West Indian branch of the genus. 
Rasch’s Sea-Bream is evidently an intermediate 
form between Brama Raii and the West Indian branch 
of the genus, the latter being distinguished by the 
shortest anal fin, but, however, including a high-finned 
form (Br. Brevorti ) as well as two comparatively low- 
finned (Br. Agassizii and Br. Saussurii) a , between which 
we should have to distinguish if the distinction of spe- 
cies in this branch of the genus could be regarded as 
fixed. The relation between Rasch’s and Ray’s Sea- 
Breams is in most respects, however, a distinct ex- 
pression of the different stages in one and the same 
course of development, in which the former represents 
the less advanced stages. This appears even in the 
more perfect retention of the spines on the scales, but 
also strikes us in several of the other changes due to 
age, which we have traced as far as the scanty mate- 
rials at our disposition and the measurements given by 
other writers admit. It is with this object that we have 
drawn up the following table of comparison, assuming 
that Brama princeps represents one of the most highly 
developed stages of Br. longipinnis. 
Brama 
longipinnis 
Brama Raii 
Esmark. 
Johnson. 
juv. 
sen. 
Length 
of the body to the end of 
the middle caudal 
rays . 
mm. 
334 
(701—712)? 
56.3 
472 
1) Length 
of the anal fin 
in 
% of that of the 
body. 

— - % 
31.8 
<38 
40.9 
42.4 
2) „ 
„ ,, lower jaw 
55 
55 55 55 55 55 
anal 
fin 
„ 
53.i 
— 
34.8 
29 
3) Greatest 
height of the dorsal fin 
55 
„ „ its length.. 
,, 
> 56 
42.8 
35.7 
30 
4) „ 
„ „ „ „ „ 
55 
„ „ the length 
of the 
head 
„ 
> 90 
92.3—100 
64.3 
71.8 
5) Length 
of the anal fin 
„ 
55 55 55 55 
55 55 
dorsal 
„ 
72 
75 
91.2 
80.3 
6) „ 
„ „ head 
„ 
55 55 55 55 
55 55 
body 
27.9 
<27 
24.8 
21.8 
7) „ 
55 55 55 
„ 
55 55 55 55 
55 55 
dorsal fin 
— „ 
63.2 
46.4 
55.5 
41.4 
8) „ 
55 55 55 
55 
55 55 55 55 
55 55 
anal „ 
„ 
87.7 
61.9 
60.9 
51.5 
9) „ 
„ X X 
X 
55 55 55 55 
55 55 
pectoral fins 
55 
102.4 
84.7 
82.4 
68.7 
10) „ 
X X lower jaw 
55 
55 55 55 55 
55 55 
body 
55 
16.8 
— 
14.2 
12.3 
11) „ 
55 55 55 55 
X 
55 55 55 55 
55 55 
head 
„ 
60.5 
— 
57.i 
56.3 
12)' „ 
X X X X 
„ 
55 55 55 55 
55 55 
dorsal fin 
55 
38.2 
— 
31.3 
23.3 
13) Breadth 
of the interorbital space 
5) 
55 55 55 55 
55 55 
lower jaw 
57.7 
— 
51.2 
48.3 
14) Length 
„ „ dorsal fin 
55 
55 55 55 55 
55 55 
bodv 
55 
44.i 
<51 
44.7 
52.7 
15) „ 
„ „ pectoral fins 
X 
55 55 55 55 
X X 
55 
55 
27.3 
/ >30 i 
i <32/ 
30.2 
33 
16) „ 
„ „ ventral „ 
55 
55 55 55 55 
55 55 
pectoral fins 
„ 
45.2 
16.9 
38.8 
24.3 
17) „ 
55 55 55 55 
55 
55 55 55 55 
55 55 
body 
„ 
12.3 
<6 
11.7 
8 
18) „ 
55 55 55 55 
55 
„ ,, „ greatest height of the dorsal 
< 50 
20.8—20 
73.3 
51.3 
In all these proportions except Nos. 4, 5 and 18 we 
can easily see that where the changes of age in Br. 
Raii show an increasing ratio, in Brama longipinnis the 
percentage is least, and vice versa. We must, however, 
pay attention to the age as well, provided it be expressed 
by the length of the body, for then the specimens de- 
“ With respect to these forms see Lunel, 1. c., pp. 182 etc., 
scribed by Johnson must have passed through changes 
considerably greater than the oldest specimen of Br. 
Raii. It is from this cause, too, that, in the three ex- 
ceptional relations (4, 5 and 18), we should really look 
for the ratio of Esmark’s specimen nearest to, but still 
below or above that of the older specimen of Br. Raii. 
Plate II. 
Scandinavian Fishes. 
11 
