ACANTHOPTERYGII. 
English and Irish specimens may be considered insufficient to warrant such 
a conclusion — that they are distinct. 
The more prominent differences are — in the form of the snout ; in the 
body of my specimens being very much rougher than that of T. Hirundo , 
with which Mr. Couch’s fish agrees in this respect ; in their lateral line 
being strongly and acutely serrated, although, in the individual described 
by this gentleman, it ‘ is but faintly, though distinctly, roughened.’ 
Finally, it may be observed, with reference to this last fish being ‘ hitherto 
confounded with T. Blochii ,’ that the examination of my specimens con- 
vinces me that the T. Cuculus of Bloch, Cuvier, Pennant,* Montagu, 
Fleming, and Jenyns represents but one species ; that Mr. Yarrell’s T. 
Blochii , excepting what is borrowed from Risso, is also identical, and, 
judgingfrom Mr. Couch’s description, that his Trigla is a different species.” 
Dr. Parnell having called attention to the apparent identity of Trigla 
Cuculus, Bl., with the T. Gurnardus of authors, I communicated the follow- 
ing remarks to the Annals N. H. (vol. ii. p. 313) : — - 
“ When noticing the T. Cuculus as an addition to the Fauna of Ireland, in the 
first volume of the ‘ Annals’ + (p. 348), 1 embraced the opportunity of offering 
some remarks on the confusion that existed about the species. In so far, the 
observations then made may not be useless ; but as it was looked upon in the 
ordinary light of being a species distinct from T. Gurnardus, of which it has 
very recently been ’shown to be merely the young, I feel that a few notes are 
requisite as supplementary.” 
In a paper on some species of British fishes read by Dr. Parnell before 
the meeting of the British Association of Newcastle, the author stated that 
an examination of a series of specimens, embracing all sizes, had led him 
to the conclusion that T. Cuculus, Bl. (T. Blochii, Yarr.), is only the young 
of T. Gurnardus ; and to him alone, I believe, is this highly interesting 
discovery due, for such, in consequence of the manner in which it is effect- 
ed, I conceive it to be. X Having lately procured a series of specimens, 
that I might, for my own satisfaction, examine into this question, I shall 
here give the results. The following extract from the Histoire Naturelle 
des Poissons of Cuvier and Valenciennes, by whom they are considered 
* Between the figures and descriptions of Bloch and Pennant there is some 
disparity ; the latter author describes two spines on each side of the snout, the 
former four, which number my specimens possess. Bloch describes the lateral 
line as consisting of “ ecailles epaisses, larges ,” &c., which mine exhibit; whilst 
Pennant observes that “ the side-line [is] nearly smooth.” Bloch again describes 
the caudal fin as forked, and figures it very much so ; Pennant states that it is 
“ almost even at the end,” which it is in the individuals under consideration. 
f One oversight was here committed. Mr. Jenyns is mentioned in company 
with other authors as not having described the relative length of the first and 
second rays of the first D. fin to each other; but, although this is not alluded to 
in his Manual, under the head of T. Cuculus (a circumstance which led to the 
remark), the relative differences only between this species and T. Gurnardus 
being described, rendered any observation on this point unnecessary, when a 
similarity was considered to prevail in this character. For a similar reason, Cuv. 
and Val. did not particularize the relative length of these rays. 
X In the number of specimens of each species, independently of the beautiful 
manner in which they are preserved, Dr. Parnell’s collection of British fishes 
stands quite unrivalled. In these Triglce is a notable instance of the advantage 
of a series of different sizes, the young and old fish being so different, that with- 
out having traced the changes from youth upwards we could hardly believe in 
the modification which really takes place. 
