RED GURNARD. 
75 
an Irish fish, and which I then considered as specifically distinct from 
Trigla Gurnardus : — 
“ Trigla Cuculus, Bloch,* T. Blochii , Yarr., Red Gurnard. 
Of this gurnard, two small specimens, taken at Youghal, County Cork, 
early in the Summer of 1835, have, along with many other fishes from the 
same locality, been kindly submitted to my examination by Dr. Ball of 
Dublin. 
They are respectively 3 and 3^ inches in length. The number of rays 
in their fins are — 
D. 8—19 ; P. 10, and 3 ; Y. 1|5 ; A. 18, and 19 ; C. 10 (and 11). 
A black spot is conspicuous on the membrane, from 3rd to 5th ray of 
1st D. fin. P. fins extending so far as to be on a line with the origin of 
A. fin.j- Dorsal spines, 27. Lateral line strongly serrated. ‘ Whole body 
rough’ (as described by Montagu, Wetn. Mem. vol. ii. p. 459), in conse- 
quence of spinous scales. Other characters — first D. ray slightly serrated, 
&c., as given by Cuvier and Valenciennes, Hist, des Pois., t. iv. p. 68, 69 : 
in this work, the relative length of the 1st and 2nd rays of the 1st D. fin 
is not mentioned,]; nor is it in the descriptions of Bloch, Montagu, Flem- 
ing, or Jenyns. Mr. Yarrell, not having a specimen for examination, 
states, on the authority of Risso, ‘ that the first spinous ray of the first 
dorsal fin is the longest’ (Brit. Fish. vol. i. p. 51), and so figures it; but, in 
both the specimens under consideration, the 2nd ray of that fin is longest, 
thus corresponding in this important character with Pennant’s figure of 
the species. See Red Gurnard, in Brit. Zool., vol. iii. pi. 57, Ed. 1776, 
and pi. 66, Ed. 1812. 
In the Magazine of Natural History for September, 1836 (p. 463), Mr. 
Couch has given ‘ a description of the characteristics of a kind of Trigla , 
hitherto confounded with T. Blochii .’ As it is from the description only 
of this species that the opinion of Mr. Couch was formed, it may be stated, 
as affording additional evidence of the correctness of his views, that, after 
a critical comparison of the specimens under consideration with his de- 
scription, I am satisfied — although the great disparity in size between the 
* The T. Cuculus , Bl., appears inadvertently in Mr. Templeton’s catalogue of 
“ Irish Vertebrate Animals” (Mag. Nat. Hist., N. S., vol. i. p. 409), the species 
meant being the T. Pint, Bl. 
f These are generally described as not reaching so far as the vent, but their 
superior length in the present instance is, probably, consequent on the specimens 
being so young, as in several other genera of fishes I have remarked the P. fins 
in very young individuals to be much longer proportionally than they are in 
adult specimens. 
j Notwithstanding the trouble taken by Cuv. and Val. in clearing up the 
synonyma of the Trigla, and which has been so ably done, there is still a little 
confusion in one point respecting this species. At p. 70 it is remarked that Risso 
has well described it; yet on a comparison instituted between the T. Cuculus 
and T. Gurnardus , there is nothing said of a difference in the length of the rays of 
the 1st D. fin. The “ exactitude ” of Pennant is, at the same time, acknowledged, 
although he represents the 2nd ray of this fin to be the longest, as Risso does the 
1st. From this I should infer that Risso’s character of “ radiis pinna dorsali 
anteriore longissimus” has been overlooked. And, besides, Bloch’s figure of 
the T. Cuculus , exhibiting the 1st and 2nd rays of this fin of equal length, is 
criticised by Cuv. and Val., and no remark made upon this discrepancy. Neither 
in Bloch’s description is it stated that this species differs from other Trigla in the 
relative length of these fin-rays. 
