“fLATE GV. 
If the definition of the two fishes are inexplicit, the Cepola 
®gured by RondeletiuSj Gesner, and Jonston are likewise to be con- 
sulted with caution; late writers these are referred to the species 
"^^nia; should this be correctj we must express our doubt how far 
Ihey are authorized in placing the Tanut rubra of Ray and Wil- 
loughby, and the EUchelyoinis of Klein, with the same species; 
The latter we suspect to be the Cepola rubescens, an<l think ought 
father to be placed with the “ Taenia serpens rubescens dicta” of 
^‘'tedi than as synonymous with Cepola Taenia. — The Cepola ru~ 
^escens is decribed in the tenth edition of the Linnffian Systemet 
Under the appellation of “ Ophidion macrophtkalnmm, maxillis im- 
herbibus pinna caudae acuminata.” In the last edition of that work 
the description is different) it occurs in the new genus Cepola under 
the specific name rubescens, and is thus described : “ pinna caiidee 
^^^iienuata ■ maxillis acutis — the Cepola Taenia, to which it is 
So closely allied, appears under the character of -pinna caiula at- 
^^nuata maxillis acutis.” 
Rlbch seems to he the first wfiter who describes the’ Cepola with 
Accuracy, and he only speaks of one specie®} the Cepola Taenia, the 
‘description of which very nearly corresponds with our rubescens^ 
und would almost incline us to believC them both the same ' species. 
In the first place, according to this writer) Cepola Taenia is known 
Uy having the head truncated in front ; Gmelin says it is very obtuse, 
’‘t’hils'that of rubescens has the jaws sliarp-pointed. This being re 
garded as tlid most material character, deserves attention. — ^'fhe figure 
the head' in Bloch, though obtuse, does not deserve the appelia- 
fion of obtiisissima, lieither are the jaws of the fish before lis so 
pointed as to accord wdth that of dcmiiindfa ; it is in a very slight 
^ogree of a more lengthened form thart the figure of Bloch represents; 
’^OlC. V, 
Q 
