PLATE LX VI. 
fish is pretty accurate, and may be generally relied upon. In stating this 
we dissent entirely from the opinion entertained by another naturalist of 
no m u c "brity in the science of ichthyology, the ingenious Dr. 
Bloch • ■ Berlin. This writer treats the account given by our English 
natural: st with unmerited severity. He dwells on the subject of the 
Globe Diodon with much critical animadversion, and labours to prove 
that the fish Mr. Pennant means, is not the Tetrodon lmvigatus of 
Linnaeus, but the Linnatan Tetrodon Lagocephalus ; but with what 
success we shall consider hereafter. His remarks on this topic arc 
curious, and cannot be better expressed than in his own words. 
“ M. Pennant (says that writer) rapporte a not repoisson le lasvigatus 
de Linne ; mais en comparant son dessein avec la description que 
Linne donne de ces deux poissons, on voit que son poisson est le 
notre, ou le lagocephalus de Linne ; car chez le lasvigatus, il n y a 
que la partie anterieure du ventre qui soit garnie de pointes. II lui 
donne aussi deux dents au lieu de quatre T” 
But it appears from hence that Dr. Bloch has presumed too far. 
He even affords us reason to suspect, from this and various other 
passages in his work, that he has ventured to criticise upon the ob- 
servations of a writer whose language he was at best but imper- 
'* Iu the latter part of this observation Dr. Bloch is right; the jaws and teeth are far 
from well expressed in Pennant’s plate, a circumstance that may have arisen from an 
•Oversight in the artist, as well as the author. In all the specimens of this fish that 
have seen, the beak is cleft at the apex, both of the upper and lower mandible, 
a nd by that means each is divided into two distinct teeth, but in Pennant s figure, the 
mandibles appear entire, as if the fish were furnished with only a single tooth instead 
of two in each jaw. This cleft being one of the principal characteristics of the genus 
Ttrodon, mast have been evidently overlooked by Mr. Pennant. 
