Banks's oarfish. 
these figures still exist which do not display a near likeness to 
each other, and yet profess to hear a close resemblance to the 
fish itself. 
As the residence of Mr. Edward Chirgwin, a respectable fish- 
merchant, was near the place where the first-mentioned Cornish 
example was found, he was acquainted with the circumstances 
attending the discovery; and it was his expressed belief that 
the drawing of it in his possession was not only taken from 
nature, but the only one that was so: in which opinion however 
there is reason to conclude that he was mistaken. By the favour 
of Jlr. Chirgwin this drawing was copied for my use, hut the 
original has since conic into my possession. It is somewhat 
roughly executed, but expresses much of the known character 
of the fish. Two prominent rays of the anterior portion of the 
dorsal fin project forward over the snout, and have the extremities 
expanded into an oval or fan-shaped membrane, after which the 
fin runs in a much narrower form to the extremity of the body. 
The ventral fins are formed of a pair of rays, which measure 
about one thiid of the length of the whole fish; and the end 
of each is expanded in the same manner as that of the first rays 
of the dorsal fin, Ihe pectoral is round. The posterior extremity 
of the body is represented as defective, but to shew that the 
supposed caudal is an addition made by the draftsman, it is 
not closely joined to the body. The eyes large, and the jaws 
are drawn out in an unusual manner. The lateral line begins 
high on the neck, but soon descends and runs along nearer the 
lower than the upper outline. All the fins are red, but the 
body has a greenish tint, which is deeper near the border above 
and below; with stripes of a deeper tinge of the same colour. 
The inscription on this figure is, (marked with inverted commas, . 
as if copied from some other,) “This is a drawing of a fish 
that came on shore at Newlyn, on Saturday, the 23rd. of 
February, 1788. Its length without the tail, (which it wanted) 
was eight feet and a half, its extreme breadth ten inches and 
a half, and its thickness but two inches and three fourths. — M. 
Wright feet.” 
The figure, of which I was favoured with a copy, in the 
possession of the late William Rashleigh, Esq., F.R.S., etc., was 
said to represent a fish that was taken in the year 1791; and 
was the original of the representation in Mr. Yarrell’s own 
