82 
SCANDINAVIAN FISHES. 
Besides the information we may thus gain from the 
table, we also find in Br. longipinnis certain relations 
which cannot be explained in accordance with develop- 
ment. These chiefly concern the height of the body, 
which in Esmark’s specimen is considerably less than 
in Br. Bail. The specimens of Johnson, however, 
level this difference, though they contradict the direc- 
tion of development which seems to be indicated by a 
comparison between the two specimens of Br. Baii, 
just as the exceptional relations mentioned above. 
This want of accordance suggests a true distinction of 
species or a difference in the course of development", 
even though the differences expressed in the above 
table may be eliminated by a richer supply of mate- 
rials for examination. The scales correspond in form, 
as we have mentioned, to those of the preceding spe- 
cies, but their number is considerably less, there being 
only from 41 to 45 in the lateral line according to the 
statements to which I have access. In the colouring 
there seems to be no real difference from the preceding 
species. 
Rasch’s Sea-Bream has been met with in the North 
on only two occasions, once when it was caught in 
Varge Fjord off Alten in Norwegian Finmark, and a 
second time when it was cast ashore on the Westman 
Islands, Iceland. The rarity of this fish naturally pre- 
cludes all possibility of its possessing any special value 
for the fisherman. 
Fam. CAKANGIDiE. 
Form of the body elongated or high , perci form or strongly compressed. Eyes middle-sized or fairly large. Of 
the external bones of the head the preoperculum and sometimes the frontal bones dentated at the margin or furnished 
with spines during youth , but in adult specimens smooth. Scales small or middle-sized — sometimes absent — and 
with smooth margin, sometimes, though only in the lateral line, resembling high, spinous plates. Spinous-ray ed part 
of the dorsal and anal fins (or the anterior dorsal and anal fins, where each of these fins is double) shorter than 
the soft-rayed part, but in youth at least, well developed; at least tivo spinous rays before or at the beginning 
of the anal fin. Simple, pointed teeth in sparse rows or a card on the jaivs and palate, during youth at least. 
The superior longitudinal ridges of the skull highly developed, the high supraorbital crest anteriorly prolonged on 
the surface of the frontal bones as well. Ventral fiats thoracic, and though sometimes reduced by age in size as 
ivell as structure, generally composed of 1 spinous ray and 5 soft. Branchiostegal rays usually 7 b . Branched 
■rays in the caudal fin 15 at least. Total number of vertebrce generally 24 or 25, 10 of which are abdominal. 
From the Mackerel family as adopted by Cuvier 
Gunther" removed the greater part into a separate 
family, Carangidce, the family of the Horse-Mackerels, 
which he characterized by the number of the vertebrae, 
stating that in these fishes it is lower than in the true 
Mackerels and their nearest relatives d . Gill" has 
pointed out a safer character, drawn from the structure 
of the skull and most distinctly expressed, as far as 
we can see, by the different development of the longi- 
tudinal ridges on the occiput, the forehead and the 
temples. In the Carangidce these ridges are compara- 
tively high, especially the middle, supraoccipital ridge, 
which extends forward over the coalescent frontal bones, 
and reminds us of the preceding family. The other two 
ridges belong to the temporal region, whence they ex- 
tend more or less forward on each side of the skull, 
the one starting from the mastoid (epiotic) bone and 
sometimes, as in Trachynotus, continued along the side 
of the frontal bones as far as the rostral region, where 
it meets the ridge of the opposite side, or, as in Ca- 
a So far as we can rely on the results attained by a study of the trifling materials which this species has hitherto afforded us. 
6 Gill, however, states that they vary between 5 and 10. 
c Cat. Brit. Mus., Fish., vol. II, pp. 354 and 417. 
d Gunther points out (1. c., p. 417) that the genera Cliorinemus and Temnodon ( Pomatomus ) form exceptions: “but a comparison 
with Lichia shows that their natural position is by the side of this genus.” That Naucrates, which Gunther placed among the Scombridce 
because of the number of its vertebrae, should really be referred to this family, has already been stated by Gill (Proc. Acad. Nat. Sc. Philad_ 
1862, p. 431). That the number of the vertebrae may be of less systematic importance than Gunther here, as in other questions, e. g. in 
the Salmonidce, ascribed to it, is also shown by Heincke’s observations of the variations in this respect in the common Herring. 
e Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., vol. V (1882), pp. 487 etc. 
