ON SIX NEW 0E HARE QUEENSLAND FISHES.— OGILBY. 80 
Described from two specimens, 160 and 170 millim. in respective length, 
taken at Bulwer, Moreton Bay, by Mr. James Palmer. The larger, which I have 
selected as the type, is in the collection of the Queensland Museum, Beg. No. I. 
13/1059 ; the smaller, a topotype, in that of the A.P.A.Q. 
The only other specimen of which I have any definite knowledge is in the 
Australian Museum, Sydney, and of this McCulloch, in answer to a letter in which 
I forwarded a copy of the above description, writes — “ The third is 50 millim. long 
from Caloundra. It is certainly your fish, and Waite also called it G. bengalensis ? ”, 
In an earlier part of the same letter he says, of three specimens in that collection — 
“ The largest, about 130 millim. long, is named G. affinis Gunther, and is from Batavia. 
It is part of the Day collection and was originally labeled G. sordidus, which it is not ; 
I do not know who determined it as affinis, but it agrees with the description of that 
species. It is well represented by Bleeker’s figure, which he calls G. bengalensis , 
but is quite different from Day’s figure of this last species. The second is 65 millim. 
long, and is from Sweer’s Island, Gulf of Carpentaria. I have little doubt that it is 
the young of the other though the positions of the fifth and sixth bands are a trifle 
different, being more like your sketch. Waite determined it as G. bengalensis ? ” 
From all this it is clear that there was considerable doubt in Waite’s mind as 
to the identity of the three Australian Museum specimens, at which perhaps little 
wonder need be expressed, considering the confusion which evidently exists between 
the identifications of Gunther, Bleeker, and Day. 
It is plain that the Moreton Bay fish needs only to be compared with three 
species — Glyphisodon septemfasciatus Cuvier & Valenciennes,* G. bengalensis Bloch, t 
and G . affinis Gunther, J the type localities of which are respectively “ l’lsle de France,” 
“ East Indies,” and “ China.” Leaving aside the difference in the pattern of 
coloration, which applies equally to all three species, the first may be at once dismissed 
because of its much shallower body, larger head (4 to 4-25 in total length, fide Bleeker 
and Day, as against 4*6 in my type), the much larger naked area on the upper surface 
of the head, as described by Gunther but not as figured by Bleeker, which more 
closely approaches to that described above, the pointed caudal lobes, etc., etc. 
From the G. bengalensis and G. affinis of Gunther’s Catalogue our species 
differs among other characters in the much narrower infraorbital ring and the larger 
number of scales in a transverse series. In the former character it is more in agree- 
ment with Day’s figure of G. ccelestinus and Blceker’s of G. bengalensis . As a matter 
of fact these three authors have between them so inextricably confused the trans- 
versely banded glyphisodonts that a critical examination of numerous specimens 
from various localities has become urgently necessary. 
* Hist. Nat. Poiss., v, 1830, p. 463. 
f Ausl. Fisch,, pi. ccxiii, fig. 3. 
I Brit. Mus. Catal. Fish., iv, 1862, p. 41. 
