THE SOLENETTE. 
209 
backed flounder of Hanmer, Pennant’s Brit. Zool. (vol. iii. p. 313, pi. 48, ed. 
1812), and the Mon. minutus, Parn., I am enabled to speak decidedly on some 
points which, in my previous remarks on these species, Annals Nat. Hist., vol. 
ii. p. 19, could only, from a want of specimens, be treated of problematically. 
This I now proceed to do as supplementary to what appeared in the Annals ; 
but it may be well, in the first place, to give a slight sketch of the British 
Monochiri, in so far as our present knowledge extends. 
“ The first British Monochirus I am aware of being noticed, is that figured 
under the name of Variegated Sole in Donovan’s British Fishes (pi. 117), the 
individual represented having been purchased in the London market in April, 
1807, but where captured is not mentioned. In the edition of Pennant’s British 
Zoology, published in 1812, Mr. Hanmer figured and described a species by the 
appellation of Red-backed Flounder, and stated it to be ‘ common in the spring 
upon the coast near Plymouth.’ In the sixth volume of the Magazine of Natural 
History, p. 530, a specimen of Solea variegata is noticed by Dr. Scouler to 
have been taken at Rothsay in the isle of Bute. Mr. Jenyns, in his Manual of 
British Vertebrate Animals, p. 468, takes his description from one procured at 
Weymouth ; and Mr. Yarrell, in his History of British Fishes, vol. ii. p. 262, 
figures and describes an individual supplied from Cornwall by Mr. Couch, and 
mentions, in addition, from the MS. of Montagu, that this natui*alist received a 
specimen 9 inches in length from Dr. Leach, who purchased it with two others 
in Plymouth market, in August, 1808. Thus far our authors, with the exception 
of Mr. Jenyns (who leaves it to be proved by future investigation whether 
there be not a second species), speak only of one Monochirus. 
“ In the first volume of the Magazine of Zoology and Botany, p. 526, Dr. 
Parnell described a Monochirus , which is taken at Brixham, under the specific 
name of minutus , introducing it doubtfully as a new species, but witlf certainty 
as distinct from the £ red-backed sole, Mon. Lingula ,’ and, as such, an addition 
to the British Fauna. Lastly, the September number of the Annals contains 
observations by myself on two species of Monochirus taken on the coast of 
Ireland. 
“ To attempt placing the species, of which notices are here brought together, 
in a clearer light, is the object of tlie present communication ; and although this 
may to a certain extent be done, the sequel will show that it cannot be performed 
effectively. 
“ First : — The variegated sole as figured and described by Donovan and Yar- 
rell, the specimen recorded by Dr. Scouler,* and the individual noticed by my- 
self under the name of Solea variegata , are identical. The localities in which 
this species has been procured, are the coasts of Cornwall in England, of the 
island of Bute in Scotland, and of Down in Ireland. As suggested in my pre- 
vious paper on this subject, it may be worthy of investigation, whether the Mon. 
Pegusa of Risso, obtained from the Mediterranean, be this species (t. iii. p. 258, 
f. 33, ed. 1826). f Of the references in Mi\ Yarrell’s work, those relating to 
Rondeletius, Willughby and Cuvier apply, I conceive, to the species next to be 
noticed ; Duhamel I have not for consultation ; Fleming merely quotes Donovan 
and Pennant. 
“ Spec. char. Mon. variegatus. Pectoral fin about ~ the length of head : 
scales on lateral line about 85 ; dorsal’and anal unconnected with caudal fin. 
“ Secondly : — The Solea Lingula of Jenyns’s Manual (excepting the short 
specific characters and colours which are copied from Hanmer), the Mon. minutus 
of Parnell, and the Solea Lingula , Rond. (Mon. linguatulus) , described by me 
in the Annals, are the same species ; — of the identity of these two last I judge 
* As this fish is very briefly noticed in the Magazine, I wrote to Dr. Scouler 
respecting it, and was informed in reply that it may be considered identical with 
the variegated sole of Yarrell. 
t The large size of the pectoral fin, as represented in the figure,, marks a 
Solea rather than a Monochirus ; but it is described as the latter by Risso, and 
the figure referred to as such by Cuvier, Reg. An., t. ii. p. 343, 2nd ed. 
P 
