PLATE CV. 
the difference is scarcely perceptible, and the head is so much flattened in 
front as to be really truncated ; in tlris respect, therefore, so far as we 
can judge, the two fishes are not very, if at all, different. Accord- 
ing to the Gmelinian Systema, this is the only distinction between 
the two fishes ; for although he mentions, besides this, the form of 
the caudal fin, he describes it as being attenuated in both species, and 
which consequently therefore ceases to be a decisive character of either. 
“ Gmclin (says Mr. Montagu) is inclined to think the Cepola 
lubescens a variety of the Cepola Taenia, but that is out of all 
question, as the body of this species is not carinated on each side, 
nor has the lower jaw a double row of teeth ; and in other respects 
diffeis. These observations are worthy of further consideration* 
1 he most material objection arises from a supposed difference with 
regard to the sides of the two fishes, those of the Cepola Taenia 
being conceived to be carinated, while in rubescens the sides are per- 
fectly smooth. 
This conclusion is not correct, and the error seems to orio-inatn 
with Gmelin, who in his general description of the Cepola Taenia 
employs the terms, » utrhique carmata;’ from which it may be 
inferred, that the fish is carinated at the sides, in the literal accept- 
ance of the words, but this is not the fact; what is’usually understood 
by the sides, being depressed instead of carinated. Bloch, from 
whom Gmelin evidently takes his description, aftbrds a satisfactory 
explanation on this point. » Le tronc (says this author) est tcr- 
mine en tranchant a sa partie superieurc ct inferieure. Les coteS 
sont fort comprimes, et se retrdcissent en approchent de la queue.” 
The true character of the cari nation is thus unequivocally explained; 
It IS not the middle of the sides which is carinated, that pan being 
