PLATE LI. 
latter Is “ h Targuer” or » Grosse Plk" of Duliamel, and 
other French writers. Dr.. Bloch describes P. punctatus with accu- 
racy, but he is certainly fnistaken in believing that fish to be the 
Whiff of Ray, and Pennant, as his synonyms imply. Gmelin adopts 
the same reterences as Bloch, most probably relying in confidence on 
his authority. Dr. Shaw has been also misled in this respect, as well 
as Gmelin, for he describes minutely as the same species both the Whiff 
of Pennant, and the Pleuronectes punctatus of Dr. Bloch. 
^ Thus we perceive two very different species of the Pleuronectes 
genus are confounded under the provincial English name of Whiff, 
and it is to be regretted that Dr. Turton increases that confusion by 
describing even a third species under the very same appellation. The 
latter writer, m his Translation of Gmelin’s Systeina Naturse, contrary 
to tire letter of his author, assigns the name of Whiff to the Pleuro- 
nectes Passer of Gmelin, and Linnaeus. The figure of the Pleuro- 
nectes Passer, as it appears in the History of Fishes published by 
Dr. Bloch *, accords, we must observe, pretty nearly with the 
Wliiff of Ray, and Pennant, in its general form, and might have in- 
duced Dr. Turton to call it the Whiff, in preference to the Pleuro- 
nectes punctatus to which Gmelin refers. But upon the whole, ws 
are persuaded, notwithstanding this apparent degree of similarity, 
Whetlier the figure in Bloch’s Fishes, inscribed Pleuronectes Passer, be really the 
same as Linuieus means, is doubtful ; we rather think it is not. The Pleuronectes Passer 
of Linnmus is so nearly allied to the common flounder (Flesus) except in having the eyes 
placed towards the l^ft side of the head instead of tlie right, that Gronovius and Pennant, 
with some other Ichthyologists of repute, believe it to be only an accidental variety of 
that fish; and certainly Bloch’s figure does not convey any very striking idea of it® 
wmilitude to the coiumou founder. 
