97 
quito dried up on the head, leaving tlio plates, to all appearance, 
bare. Ihe soft parts were destroyed before I saw the fish, but 
^fi. Colo tells ino that it was a male. The contents of the 
stomach consisted of a small quantity of slimy fluid. 'J'ho bones 
were very soft, and the flesh also very soft and white. 'J'he skin 
was exceedingly delicate and devoid of scales. 
This description agrees with that given by Mr. Edward of 
the Hanff specimen (‘Zoologist,’ 1870, p.221), e.xcept that he notes 
the absence of both caudal and pectoral fin, which doubtle.ss arose 
from the mutilated condition of his specimen. d’he ba.se of the 
pectorals is very small, and the skin and llc.sh .so delicate that 
the attachment would l)o very slight. That the peculiarly shaped 
rentral fins mejitioncd by ^Ir. Eiimp also escaped his attention is 
not surprising, as in the llolkham specimen, when it reached 
lS'’orwich, Mr. Cole tells mo he ob.served no trace of them. 
I^fr. Colo differs from I^lr. Kump as to the situation of the 
vent, which the latter gentleman places “close to the gills," 
whereas !Mr. (.ole, who skinned the fish, assures me it was about 
two-thirds of the length of the fish distant from the head. I had 
no moans of verifying this when T saw the skin. The Eel fast 
specimen (‘Zoologist,’ 1875, ]). .134.3), which was washed up at 
]hindoran, on the southern shoi-e of Donegal Day, greatly exceeded 
the one now recorded in size, being seven feet nine inches long, 
but whether it diffei'ed in other respects, the brief notice given of 
it afloi’ds no moans of forming an opinion. 
'J'he Vaagmaw was first described as Jhitish by Dr. Fleming 
from a specimen Avhich came ashore at Sandoy, one of the 
(Orkneys, several othei-s having occurred in the same localitv. In 
addition to those already mentioned, a specimen taken some 
twenty years ago is now in the Newcastle iMuseum, and Mr. J. H. 
Ciurney, jun., also tells me that he saw oiie a few years ago at 
leesmouth, but is not aware whether it was recorded. In ‘ The 
Field’ for February 7th, 1880, will be found an account of a 
monster, sixteen feet in length, which was left by the tide among 
the locks at btaithes, near M hitby, a few days previously; it is 
there ilescribed as a ^'aagma;-!-, but was doubtless a Bank’s Oar-fish, 
as stated in ‘ Jho Field’ for February 21st. From six to ten feet 
is, I believe, considered the extreme length of the Vaaginrer. 
Elojd, in his ‘ Ciamo Birds and AA ild Fowl of Sweden and 
Norway’ (p. 470), gives the following account of the habits and 
von. II r. 
II 
