54 
do witli one another. I need not describe all details, but merely 
point out tke advanced position of the anus in all my specimens; 
these vary from 3 cm. to a little over 6 cm. in length, and none 
of them are as yet in process of transformation. Among the Med- 
iterranean Leptocephali a similar position of the anus is only 
known in the genera Saurenchelys and Nettastoma. The larva of 
Chlopsis is further remarkable to a special degree for its pigmen- 
tation. It possesses a similar row of mediolateral points to the 
larva of Conger vulgaris, but these are considerably smaller and 
doser together than in the latter. As can be seen from the figure, 
there is also a row of closely placed points along the upper part 
of the gut. Further, a row of very fine points is present along 
the posterior part of the anal fin. 
The evidence that the larval form figured here belongs to 
Chlopsis bicolor Raf. is contained first of all in the number of nno- 
meres, which in 14 specimens were found to vary between 131 and 
136, ca. 48 being preanal. This number excludes almost all the 
eel-fishes known from the Mediterranean: Anguilla, Conger, Congro- 
muraena mystax , Muraena helena, Myrus, Nettastoma, Saurenche¬ 
lys, Ophichthys serpens, imberbis, hispanus and sp., in all of which 
I have counted the vertebrae myself. There remain Muraena uni- 
color, Todarus brevirostris, Ophichthys coecus, Congromuraena ba- 
learica and Chlopsis bicolor. Of these Congromuraena balearica 
(with C. mystax) is at once excluded owing to the faet, that my 
material of this species contains all transitional stages between 
metamorphosed, easily determinable specimens and the early larvae 
(see fig. 2 in my paper of 1912), which are totally different from 
the larva in question here. With regard to Ophichthys coecus, 
though the number of vertebrae is unknown to me, yet this species 
may be excluded owing to the faet, that the present larva belongs 
to quite a different type from the other Ophichthys larvae and has 
rays in all the unpaired fins. Todarus brevirostris I only know 
from Facciola’s and S up in o’s descriptions and figures, from 
which its appears, that it has a mueh higher number of vertebrae 
