16 
LESSER GREY MULLET. 
Mugil chelo, Jentns; Manual, p. 375. 
Yakrell; Br. Pishes, vol. i, p, 241, 
but Dr. Gunther represents the lateral view of the head alone to be a just 
representation of the fish described. Dr. Gunther, Catalogue of British 
Museum, vol. iii, p. 455, and Annals and Magazine of Natural History for 
May, 1861, p. 5, also, confines the name M. clielo to another species not 
hitherto recognised as British, the fish we have been accustomed to know 
by that name being his M. sepUntdonalis, the principal marks of difference 
between them being the decidedly shorter pectoral fin of the latter. In 
M. clielo this fin extends almost to the origin of the first dorsal fin. The 
upper lip is described as much thinner in the M. septentrionalis, the pre- 
orbital bones of a different form, and the tail more extended. It is certain, 
however, that these preorbital bones in our own fish, in their marginal 
teeth, as we represent them, are closely like those of M. chelo of Gunther, 
p. 454, and do not at all resemble those of M. eeptentriomdis, p. 455. 
This species is less frequently seen than the last named, but 
when it appears, it is in far larger numbers and more huddled 
together. I have been informed of five thousand, and in 
another instance almost eight thousand that were taken at one 
haul of a sean. The usual season of success is in the winter 
or spring, when they enter harbours and appear busily engaged 
in searching the crevices of ‘rocks and clumps of sea- weeds 
for their appropriate food. Their habits in other respects are 
but little known, except that they are disposed to seek their 
escape from confinement by leaping over an obstacle in the 
same manner as the Greater Grey Mullet. Although this 
species has only been distinguished from the other of late 
years, it is known, and even in considerable numbers, as far 
as to the extreme north of the United Kingdom. 
I have not seen it larger than from ten inches to a foot 
I 
