ANGLER. 
21S 
head, appear to be more elongate than in old individuals. 
The same is the case with the tail, measured from the gill- 
opening. It appears to have a greater number of tentacles on 
the skin, especially on the pectoralsj the margin of the 
pectorals appears to be finely ciliated. D. 11, (dorsal fin with 
eleven rays.) The differences from old individuals as we find 
them stated here by Valenciennes, agree, in the chief points, 
with our observations j but it is evident that Valenciennes took 
his notes from a mutilated specimen, in which the delicate 
appendages of the fins had been lost or shrivelled up, either 
previous to or during its preparation in spirits. The two 
specimens observed by Diiben and Keren, on the western 
coast of Norway, were much more perfect; they were 94 mm. 
and 78 mm. long, and exhibited such remarkable differences 
from the specimens commonly observed, that those naturalists 
were induced to describe them as a new form, under the 
name of LopMm eunjptenis, a species which we find adopted 
by Professor Nilsson, in his work, ‘Skandinavisk Fauna.’ 
“The view of the fish represented is the most depressed one 
possible. 
“I extract the following notes from the very detailed des- 
criptions; — The head is described as broader than long, less 
depressed than in Lophius piscatorms, its length (from the 
extremity of the snout to the posterior margin of the gill-cover) 
being one half of that of the remainder of the body, the 
caudal fin not included. The dorsal spines are comparatively 
short, the length of the first being only half of that of the 
second, or one fifteenth of the total length of the fish; the 
first terminates in a transverse cylindrical knob, which is pro- 
vided with minute cilia; the two others have alternate fringes 
on both sides. The spines which form the continuous dorsal 
are similarly fringed; and the rays of the soft dorsal project 
very slightly beyond the membrane. The pectoral is exceed- 
ingly broad, and extends beyond the origin of the anal. The 
ventral also is broad, and can be expanded like a fan.” The 
disproportion of this fin, however, in the two individuals observed 
is very remarkable. It is nearly twice the length in the larger 
one that it is in the smaller. The pectoral also is absolutely 
as well as relatively larger in this specimen than in the one 
bgured, a difference by which perhaps the sexes are dis- 
