188 
may have facilitated or induced the extension of the shoals in 
such unusual quanties from Japan to our coasts. Duperrey (or 
Lesson and Grarnot) found it in New Zealand, and Cuvier and 
Valenciennes referred their specimen to the genus Alausa. I 
find, however, that the authors of the “Histoire des Poissons” 
were in error, and Temmink in the right, — the former assigning 
five, and the latter seven gill-rays ; and it has also a row of teeth 
on the tongue, as was correctly stated by Temmink, and errone- 
ously denied by Cuvier and Valenciennes. The fish is therefore 
a Meletta, and not an Alausa, and should be referred to as the 
Meletta Melanosticta (Tern.)” 
All that the Professor says about the extraordinary occurrence 
of the shoals of the fish is perfectly correct, and they have since 
that time made their appearance every year ; but in 1871 a few 
only began to be seen on the 16th of November, and they became 
more abundant in December and January following, but at 
all times in much less numbers than those of other years, but 
I cannot agree with Professor M'Coy about the name of this 
fish, and it is impossible for me to see any teeth on its tongue ; 
I therefore think that its genus was well named by Cuvier and 
Valenciennes. That it is not the Melanosticta of Schleg. is still 
more evident, as that sort has sixteen or seventeen rays to its 
anal, while the Australian fish has eighteen, and this is one of 
the characters of Sagax, which has also the round black spots on 
the sides. Dr. Gunther has well described and distinguished 
these two sorts, and if Professor M‘Coy has not been mistaken 
in regard to the existence oflingualteeth, it would ^show that the 
two sorts appear in the waters of the southern parts ot Australia. 
According to Dr. Gunther, Olupea Sag ax inhabits the western 
coast of America, from California to Chili, Japan, and New 
Zealand. 
MELETTA. 
This genus of Cuvier and Valenciennes, formed on sorts who have 
only teeth on the tongue, and none on the jaws, is not admitted by 
Dr. Gunther, who considers the dentition in this group of fishes as 
too rudimental to be taken as a generic character ; but at the 
same time he takes it as his principal character of the division of 
the genus. If it is constant enough to furnish a safe guide for 
