PLATE CVIII. 
The ample account Dr. Goodenough affords, agrees with our 
specimen, which measures nearly four feet in length, and possesses a 
triple series of long acute teeth in each jaw. Beside this example, 
•which we procured in a recent state, the head of another, of larger 
size, is preserved in our Museum : the animal to which the latter 
belonged must have been about five feet in length, as nearly as can 
be estimated. Those are the only specimens we have seen, and 
hence we must conclude that it cannot be a very common fish on our 
coasts. From the structure of its teeth it is supposed to be of the 
voracious kind of Sharks; its food is uncertain, for upon opening 
the stomach of our recent fish, that part was observed to be 
empty ; the same circumstance was remarked likewise upon opening 
that examined at Hastings, as above mentioned. The fins of this 
Shark are rather large, that of the tail especially, which is of a semi- 
lunar form, with the upper lobe or horn longer than the lower one *. 
From a reference to our synonyms it will be seen, that the Por- 
beagle and Beaumaris Shark are considered by us as the same animal, 
contrary to the opinion generally prevalent with naturalists, and the 
testimony of Mr. Pennant. Gmelin is an exception, for he makes 
the Beaumaris Shark a variety of the other, though on what autho- 
* In the description of the Beaumaris Shari;, lately published by Dr. Shaw, it i, 
Mated, that “ in the British Zoology, the upper lobe of the tail is said to be ten, and the 
lower thirteen inches long, but it is clear, from the plate engraved from Mr. Davies 1 * 
drawing, this is au error.” Vide Gen. Zool . — There appears to be some oversight hi this 
remark on the part of the last-mentioned ingenious writer instead of Mr. Pennant; 
for it will be seen, on reconsulting the description in the British Zoology, that the 
upper horn of the tail is “ one foot ten inches, and the lowar one foot one,’" which 
agrees exactly with the ligate of the tail in the drawing. 
