192 
ZOOLOGICAL LITERATURE. 
1 1 ^ which it should be compared. The absence of ventral fins and of a separate 
J§ > caudal is not always a character on which distinct families may be founded. 
‘-i' %Chceiiopsis, g. n. (Poey), Gill, Ann. Lyc. Nat. Hist. New York, viii. 1865, 
J/] p. 141. Body naked, eel -like j anus submedian. Head much elongate, qua- 
drate behind at the opercular region, conic in front, with the profile rectili- 
near and the snout acute. Eyes moderate. Mouth large, with the cleft 
S wide and nearly horizontal. Teeth subcylindrical, in a uniform row, behind 
/ which, in frqnt, there is a broad band of villiform teeth on the palatine bones, 
uniserial and obtusely subcylindrical like those of the jaws the palatine 
rows are parallel \ vomer edentulous. Gill-membranes confluent below, free 
from the isthmus. Dorsal and anal long, confluent v^th caudal. Ventrals 
slightly in advance of pectorals, with two or three rays. — Chcenopsis octUatus^ 
sp. n., p. 143, from Matanzas. D. A. 0. 15. Mr. Gill considers this 
fish to be the type of a distinct family, related to the Blennioids. 
ACANTHOCLINIDiE. 
This family is rejected by liner, Novara, Fisch. p. 203. 
Mastacembelidas. 
^ Mastttcenibelus giintheri, sp. n., Day, Proc. Zool. Soc. 1865, p. 37, or Fish. 
- Malabar, p. 154, pi. 11, from Trichoor. 
Sphyr^nidje. 
Sphyrcena brachygnaihus described by Kner, Novara, Fisch. p. 139. 
ATHERINIDiE. 
Atherina mochon. Notes on specimens obtained in Spain, by Steindachner, 
Sitzgsber. Ak. Wiss. Wien, 1865, Nov. 3. 
Atherinichthys. Prof. Kner (Novara, Fisch.) describes A, microlepidotay 
p. 222; '^4. brasiliensis, p. 222 -jA. incisa (Jenyns ?), p. 223, taf. 9. fig. 1. 
* Chirostoma sicculum, sp. n.. Cope, Proc. Ac. Nat. Sc. Philad. 1865, p. 81, 
from Michigan. The Becorder does not recollect having ever heard of the 
generic name Chirostoma ; but the number of fin-rays (D. 5 | 12. A. 25) 
leads hi^u to suppose that the name is intended for some fish of this family. 
MuGILIDiE, 
Agonostoma, Dajaus elongatus (Kner), fig. in Adhaiidl. Bayr. 
Ak. Wiss. X. 1, taf. 1. fig. 2, is perhaps identical witli Agono- 
stoma nasutum. Prof. Kner and Dr. Steindachner theorize on, 
and object to, the union of CestrceuSf Nestis, axidiI)ajaus[=Ago- 
nostoma) in one genus, without, however, being able to add one 
character to those on which these so-called genera were based by 
V alenciennes, which characters must appear insignificant in com- 
parison with the points of affinity, to one who knows these fishes 
from autopsy and not from descriptions only. We object most 
* This passage is uniutelligible ; probably by a printer’s error, a semicolon 
has been oniilted behind viliiiurm teeth. 
