ox RAY. 
141 
to have been derived from badly-preserved, and even mutilated 
subjects. It appears highly probable, however, that more than 
one species has visited usj and, in collecting together what 
has been recorded concerning them, I would be considered 
as furnishing the reader with a summary of what is known, 
for future use, rather than as satisfying inquiry or advancing 
a decided opinion. I have not myself been able to examine 
and sketch more than a single example, and that a preserved 
skin, of these fishes, and this I believe to have been obtained 
from the Mediterranean; but, although with some difference, 
it bore so close a likeness to the example described and 
represented by Professor M’ Coy, in the “Annals and Maga- 
zine of Natural History,” already referred to, that I feel no 
hesitation in believing them to represent each other. Professor 
M’ Coy’s description is therefore here brought forward at 
considerable length, and his figure is chiefly depended on, 
although another is also produced, from the example already 
mentioned as sketched from nature by myself. 
“The specimen in question was first publicly noticed by 
Mr. Thompson, in a communication to the Zoological Society 
of London, and the particulars which he gives of its capture 
on the Irish coast are all I know on that point. That 
gentleman, however, neither described nor figured the specimen, 
merely noticing its general resemblance to the figure given 
by Risso of the Cephaloptera Giorna; subsequent writers seem 
to have in some measure mistaken this passage, as they make 
the reference to that species decisive, which, as I have stated, 
was not the case in the original notice. I might here suggest, 
that, according to the rule of priority, DumeriPs name 
(Cephaloptera ) should not be retained for this genus, having 
been previously used by Geofi'ioy St. Hilaire for a genus of 
Coracince, formed for the reception of that remarkable bird 
the Coracina cephaloptera of Vieillot. It has been proposed 
to alter the name of the genus of fish to Pterocephala, which 
it would be well to adept. 
“On examining this very interesting specimen, I found that 
although obviously a Pterocephala, it yet presented most im- 
portant differences from the C. Giorna, both in outline, pro- 
portions, shape of the fins, and form of the wing-like appendages 
to the head; neither does it agree with any of the European 
