THE BRITISH BLACK GOBY. 
113 
ing the jaws equal, and the teeth curved, approximates it to that of Cuv. 
and Val., but the number of fin-rays differs considerably. 
The species taken at Galway, which is new to the British catalogue, 
occurs also in the Mediterranean, the collection of fishes from Corfu, 
alluded to in the note to Trigla pceciloptera as being in the Belfast Mu- 
seum, containing an individual in all respects, but that of size, quite 
identical. 
Although the G. niger of Montagu and Jenyns accords better with the 
description of Linnaeus — referring only to the number of fin-rays — than 
the species for which Cuv. and Val. have adopted his name, yet, as several 
other European gobies equally well agree with the brief characters in the 
Systema Naturae, and it being necessary to give one of the two which 
have been confounded together a new name, it appears to me that the 
species described as G. niger in the Histoire Naturelle des Poissons of the 
last-named authors — the greatest and most comprehensive work yet at- 
tempted on the subject — should retain the term there given it, and that 
it is to the Gobius niger of British authors that the new appellation should 
be applied. With this view I propose the name of Gobius Britannicus , 
not to indicate its existence only on the British shores, but in the hope 
that it may perhaps, better than any other term, mark it as the species of 
British authors. 
“ As M. Valenciennes has observed that ‘ M. Yarrell a publie une charmante 
figure de ndtre gobie,’ (t. xii. p. 18,) it must be added that this figure is more 
illustrative of my G. Britannicus than what I have considered the G. niger of 
Cuv. and Val. ; all It indeed wants to be a perfect representation of that fish is 
the lower jaw a little longer, and the teeth smaller, less regular, and truncated.” 
W. T. in Proc. of the Zoological Society, for 1837, p. 62. 
“ Gobius niger , Cuv. and Val. ? and G. Britannicus, Thomp. 
When recording a species of goby in 1837, as new to the British Fauna, 
I stated my opinion, judging merely from description, that it was the 
species described as G. niger by Cuv. and Val., Hist, des Poiss., t. xii. p. 
9, and that it was at the same time distinct from the G. niger of Montagu, 
Yarr. Brit. Fish., vol. i. p. 252, and Jenyns, and probably from that of Yar- 
rell. Of the former species I had then seen but the one native specimen — 
captured by myself in the bay of Galway — and therefore it was considered 
injudicious to draw up the specific characters. Having now obtained from 
Hr. It. Ball of Dublin two other specimens for examination — from the 
coasts of Galway and Cork — I can do so with more confidence. Although 
an easy task to point out the relative differences, it is not so with the ab- 
solute characters ; these may be described as, 
G. niger, Cuv. and Val. ? 
Teeth on the outer rows of both 
jaws very much larger than the 
others, and curving inwards. 
Scales small, with long cilia on their 
free margins. 
D. 6-16 ; P. 20 ; V. 5 each ; A. 
13 ; C. 14, and some short. 
G. Britannicus. 
Teeth of the outer rows not very 
much larger than the others, and 
like them straight and truncated 
at the summits. 
Scales rather large. 
D. 6-14 ; P. 18 ; V. 1 + 5 each ; 
A. 12; C. 15, and some .short.* 
* The examination of more specimens has shown that there is but little dis- 
parity between these species in the dorsal sulcus and the comparative length of 
jaws, although a difference did, in these respects, appear in the individuals first 
