184 
ZOOLOGICAL LITERATURE. 
cies, but which^ therefore, does not necessarily become a generic 
character. The Kecorder is rather surprised to see those genera 
adopted by Prof. Kner (Novara, Eische, p. 66), who only a few 
pages back expresses himself strongly against the genus Odonio- 
necteSy distinguished on the same grounds as Upeneoides, &c. 
The Recorder regards the Mullidce as one natural genus ; and 
if the use of those generic names is here continued, it is 
done merely to assimilate our abstract from the work mentioned 
to the original account. 
Upeneoides. Prof. Kner has made remarks on U, tragula, U. sidphtireus, 
JJ. duhius (Schleg.) (is not an Upeneus), U. tceniopterm (C. &V.). L. c. 
pp. G6-68. 
Midloides Jlavolineatus described by Kner, 1. c. p. 69. 
Upetieus. Prof. Kner has made remarks on U. barbet'inuSy U. barbennoides 
(? Blkr.), pi. 3. fig. 4, from Hongkong, U, ti'ifasciatus^ U. punctatus. L. c. 
pp. 70-72. 
SPARlDiE. 
Cantharus emarginatus described by Kner, Novara, Fisch. p. 73, 
Girella simplex. Notes on this fish by Kner, 1. c. p. 76. 
^ Scirgus imimacxdatus eervinus (hottentottus) are described by Kner, 
I c. pp. 77 & 78. ^ 
'f Sargus arenosus (Dekay), S. ambassis (Gthr.), and Tagrus argyrops (Cuv.) 
should bo united and referred to a now go\\\i&yStonotoviiis ; and the Sargus 
probatocepJialus may be ArchosarguSy according to Gill, Fish, of the 
Bay of Fundy. 
Lethrimis. Prof. Kner has made remarks on the following species : — L. am- 
boineims (Blkr. ?), L. licematopterus [not to be confoimded with X. richard- 
sanity as done by Prof. Kner], X. harak (Riipp. ?), L. fasciatus, ? =X. coco- 
sensis (Blkr.), X. lutjanus. Novara, Fisch. pp. 80-83. He describes X. 
masJienay ibid. p. 270, 
Sphan-odon. Lethrimis latidens(0 & V.) has been identified with Pagrns 
heterodon (Blkr.) by Prof. Kner, who describes and figures the species ; 1. c, 
p. 83, taf. 4. 
HoPLQGNATHIDiE. 
Hoplognathus. M. Guichenot states that Ichthyorhamphus 
(Casteln.) from the Cape of Good Hope is identical with this 
genus. Mem. Soc. Sc. Nat. Cherbourg, xi. p. 5. The same au- 
thor refers it to the Scaroid fishes ; but its pharyngeal bones are 
entirely separate, rather feeble, and armed with villiform teeth. 
ClRRHITIUiE. 
Chilodactylus carmichaelis. Prof. Kner (Novara, Fisch. p.90) 
'unjustly charges the Recorder with having confounded the fish 
described by Carmichael * with the Chilian species. If he had 
* We take this opportunity of correcting a misprint in ‘Fish.’ ii. p. 81, 
where the reference to Garmichael’s paper ought to be p. 600, pi. 24. 
