44 
BULLETIN OF THE UNITED STATES FISH COMMISSION. 
stages by a distinct notch (figs. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11). The auditory capsules are con- 
spicuous, and, viewed from above, are seen to protrude from sides of head (fig. 13). 
The alimentary canal is marked (1) by large fang-like teeth, (2) the early vesic- 
ular development of the liver, (3) the position of the anus near the body and remote 
from the margin of the ventral fin fold. As soon as the mouth is open, about the 
fourth or fifth day from the beginning of 
development, the margins of the jaws are 
seen to be marked by small protuberances. 
These are the swellings within which the 
teeth are developing. In the upper jaw 
four pairs of teeth are developed, graded 
from in front back, the anterior ones being 
comparatively enormous fangs. In the 
lower jaw four pairs are also developed. 
These are more uniform in size, but with the second one larger than the rest. In 
the oldest individual there were five pairs of teeth in the lower jaw. I am unable 
to say whether this was a normal condition. The teeth of the upper jaw close over 
those of the lower jaw. 
Fig. 13. — The head of a larva of August 7, from above. 
Fig. 14. — A larva of August 4. The fin fold of this larva is probably represented as too low. 
The oesophageal pouch of Raffaele has been mentioned. Even before hatching, 
it is a conspicuous pouch behind the heart. Later, when the anterior yolk has been 
largely consumed and is separated from the posterior yolk by a constriction, the 
vesicular structure becomes converted into a 
lobulated organ about this constriction. 
The evidence that the eggs here described 
are those of Leptocqplialus conger is circum- 
stantial rather than positive. There are two 
eels found in this region — the conger and the 
common eel. The common eel egg has been 
identified as one without an oil-sphere. This 
would leave the conger as the only possible 
parent of the present species. The conger 
was abundantly taken on the trawl at the 
" Fig. 15. — Dentition of a larva of August 14. 
bottom over which these eggs were secured. 
•On the other hand, the ripe conger egg has not been described, in spite of the fact 
that Hermes and Schmidtlein have both seen it. The egg of the conger described 
by Cunningham was obviously not ripe. The present eggs may provisionally be 
identified as those of the conger. 
