PLATE LXVI. 
\ 
tcctly acquainted with. We cannot otherwise account for his mis- 
conception of almost every characteristic by which Pennant distin- 
guishes his fish : and which he must have misconceived, or entirely 
overlooked when he concluded so positively that fish, and his lago- 
cephalus were the same species. To the eye of an experienced natu- 
ralist nothing can appear more dissimilar than the Lagocephalus of 
Bloch, and the Globe Diodon of Pennant. There- is one remark 
of the latter writer especially, that ought to be observed ; and which, 
if it had not escaped the notice of Bloch, must have convinced him 
he was himself mistaken as to Pennant’s fish : — when speaking of the 
abdominal spines of the Globe Diodon, this writer tells us, in lan- 
guage the most decisive, that the belly of his fish “ was beset with 
innumerable small sharp spines adhering to the skin by four pro- 
cesses How then could Bloch conceive his Lagocephalus to be 
the same fish, when he as plainly informs us, the spines in his fish 
adhere to the skin by means of three processes instead of four ? — 
“ Les etoiles (says he) sont disposees en vingt lignes a demi-cercles : 
chacune est formee d’un piquant-qui est pose sur trois racines,” and 
yet this ingenious ichthyologist, overlooking such a striking speci- 
fical distinction of the two species, concludes that the Pennantian 
fish must be his Lagocephalus ! — Dr. Shaw has inadvertently adopted 
this erroneous conclusion, apparently from Bloch, in his General 
Zoology, and at the same time encreases the confusion, by blending 
in detail, the history and description of the true Lagocephalus, with 
the remarks of Pennant on the Globe Diodon. 
By attending to the diverging processes at the base of the abdo- 
minal spines, the two species above confounded may be easily dis- 
* Penn. Brit. Zoo!, v. 3, p. 132. 
