250 
SCANDINAVIAN FISHES. 
rays — one above and two below, however, being ex- 
ceedingly short — and in our second specimen 13. 
The coloration of this species has been described 
by Fries as follows. The only specimen he ever saw, 
had then been dead far too long to give any certain 
indications of its colouring during life. Judging by 
the traces thereof which still remained, he was of opinion 
that it must be one of the most handsomely marked 
species. A row of golden spots on a yellowish brown 
ground still appeared along the middle of the sides, 
and similar spots followed the rays of both dorsal 
tins and of the upper half of the caudal tin. The tip of 
the anal tin was tinged with a darker shade, and the 
ventral tins, which are still blacker in our other spe- 
cimen, were almost inky. According to Collett, the 
spots on the sides of the body and the back are darker, 
and there are no true spots or transverse bands- on 
the tins. 
For a long period only one example of this species 
was known. This was taken in “the large Herring- 
seines”, “in the deep water of Gullmar Fjord" off Lyse- 
kil, on the 5th of January, 1838; and the specimen, 
which has now entirely lost both colour and scales, is 
still preserved in the Royal Zoological Museum. At a 
later date, according to Collett, Prof. G. 0. Sars ob- 
tained another specimen, 59 mm. long, in a dredge, in 
Christiania Fjord. The third specimen that has yet 
been found, was taken by Mr. C. A. Hansson, who has 
done so much for the investigation of the fauna of 
Bohuslan, “from the throat of a Cod,” in Stromstad 
Fjord, on the 1st of July, 1881. As we have remarked 
above, this example, which is unfortunately damaged, 
differs in one or two respects from Fries’s type-speci- 
men; and so far as I can judge, corresponds in every 
particular, with the exception of the scales on the head", 
to Canestr ini's Gobius Lesueurii. 
Our knowledge of this species being so scanty, we 
have scarcely anything to remark as to its manner of 
life, save that it is a deep-sea form, which, in the points 
where it differs from the preceding species, is distinctly 
analogous to the group of the genus which Ave are uoav 
about to describe. 
The folloAving six “species” form a series of inter- 
mediate forms between the tAvo preceding species and 
that given last in the above table, Gobius minutus. They 
are also so closely related to each other that the specific 
distinction, which is difficult to fix, has always been 
subject to uncertainty. In the number of the scales they 
correspond most closely to the two preceding species; 
and here, as in the latter, Ave find that those which 
have been distinguished as deep-Avater forms, have a 
smaller number of scales on the body. In conjunction 
with this peculiarity, the eyes are, as usual, larger in 
the deep-sea forms; but even among those Avhich live 
in shallower Avater, there is a difference in this respect 
which depends upon a longer or shorter retention of 
the relatively large eyes as juvenile characters. The 
same explanation also applies, in my opinion, to the 
variations in the number of rays in the first dorsal fin. 
In this respect, as Ave have mentioned above, Ave find 
both changes of growth from a loAver to a higher num- 
ber and individual deviations from the ordinary number. 
The character given in the above table, on Collett’s 
authority, as distinguishing Gobius scorpioides , also 
seems to me to be due to nothing more than an indi- 
vidual deviation. This character too, does not hold 
good in Winther’s example of the species, which ex- 
ample in this respect resembles the rest of the Scandi- 
navian Gobies. The elevation of the first dorsal fin 
which occurs here, as in Gobius Friesii , and Avhich, in 
particular, has given rise to the name of Gobius orca , 
is probably a sexual character belonging to the males, 
or perhaps appears, as is often the case, as a form- 
character in certain localities. On this point avc are 
naturally unable to give an opinion with any certainty, 
for Ave have not had the opportunity of examining more 
than one specimen of the last-mentioned, rare “species’ . 
Lastly, Avith respect to the characters based on the 
coloration, Heincke, in his excellent account of the 
colour-variations in Gobius fiavescens \ has Avarned us 
most strongly against the definition of the species ac- 
cording to these characters, as they have been given 
up to the present time. 
a It is difficult to count the branchiostegal rays ii 
compressed and anteriorly contorted. 
6 Schr. Naturw. Ver. Schles. Holst., I (1875) pp. 
this specimen, as the branchiostegal membranes are torn. 
260 etc. 
The body .is very strongly 
