4 
PEKCIM. 
11. Serranus lanceolatus. [567.] 
Holocentrus lanceolatus, Bloch, t. 242. f. 1. 
Serranus lanceolatus, Cuv. Val. ii. p. 316; Giinth. Fish. i. p. 107; Day’s Fishes of Malabar, tab.i. 
f. 1 (probably not fig. 2) . 
It has been maintained that this fish is only the young state of some larger species ; 
and it is undoubtedly true that, so far as we are aware, none of the landed specimens 
of S. lanceolatus exceed a length of 6 or 7 inches. 
Mr. Blyth was the first to refer lanceolatus as a synonym to another species, namely 
to S. coioides, Buch. Ham. ( = S . suillus, Cuv. & Val.)(Journ. As. Soc. Ben. xxix. p. 111). 
Mr. Day, without referring to this paper, also represents lanceolatus as a young 
Serranus, but takes it to be that of horridus , K. & v. H. We may remark at once 
that, to judge from the figures given by Mr. Day, this appears rather improbable, and 
he does not explain, or even notice, the difference in the length of the dorsal spines in 
the two fishes. 
The British Museum has received from Captain Mitchell of Madras a specimen, 16 
inches long, as the old state of lanceolatus, which agrees structurally, though not in 
coloration, with S. suillus ; it is certainly not the same as Mr. Day’s so-called adult 
lanceolatus. 
The first question which presented itself to us was, whether we should be able to 
recognize one of the original figures given by Bussell on plates 127 and 128. They 
represent two fishes which, to say the least, are very closely allied ; Bussell himself 
says that 128 may perhaps be merely a variety of 127. Buchanan Hamilton is of opinion 
that his Bola coioides is identical with plate 128 ; and Cuvier and Valenciennes establish 
for plate 127 the specific name of S. suillus, while plate 128 is called by them S. lontoo. 
On comparing the figures and descriptions quoted, we cannot come to any conclusion 
as to whether they refer to one and the same or to two separate fishes. 
In the Zanzibar collection there are, besides specimens of the banded S. lanceolatus , 
larger and smaller ones, from 9 to 20 inches in length, which agree very well with plates 
127 and 128 of Bussell. We might say that they agree better with the former, inas- 
much as the pectoral and anal fins are spotted, whilst those fins are immaculate in the 
latter ; therefore we have not hesitated to name these specimens S. suillus. 
The second question was whether suillus represents the more developed state of lan- 
ceolatus ; and we have come to the conclusion that it does not, — -first, because the 
largest specimen of lanceolatus is scarcely inferior in size to the smallest of suillus; 
secondly, the opercular spines of lanceolatus are much more distant than in suillus ; 
and thirdly, the scales of lanceolatus are very slightly ctenoid, nearly smooth, whilst 
those of suillus have the margin beset with very distinct spinous teeth. These points 
of difference apply equally to the specimen sent by Capt. Mitchell from Madras as an 
adult lanceolatus , and which at present we are inclined to regard as a variety of suillus. 
