atinther does not show the caudal severed with fine or small 
scales as in all our material, 
X. argyreum (Schneider). is said to be closely related 
to the present species, Aacording to Jordan and Seale “X. 
gigas is more silvery and has more distinct streaks along 
the rows of scales. In X. gigas the snout is longer.than 
the eyes; the body is more elongate, and the head propor- 
tionately longer". Owing to the state of preservation of 
our material these characters are of little value in com- 
parison, The figure of Gerres argyreus of Klunzingler 
shows the cheek with only 2 rows of scales, and the eye 
apparently little shorter than snout. 
ap CTS TENS «ENS AEE SAEED Se TO RS TLE LI ETT TT TT TIS A NRE TRER SES RET NTE TN SES 
175 | 
Fische Roth, Meer,,1884, p, 48, Pl. 13, fig.d. 
. ~o~ = — . . ee ete 
Ea ees ES OD gD ame cee ee --e - ie 
Klunzinger’s figure of G. oyena* ‘shows a glénder rish:;, 
certainly very close to X. gigas, eye about long as snout, 
hind caudal edge not dark and frontal squamation like our 
examples of X. gigas, Klunzinger also shows 3 rows of 
cheek scales, though none on preopercle flange, Day's fig- 
uret!! certainly represents a different fish as its hind 
caudal edge is shown blackish , and body depth barely half 
its length to caudal base. its snout and eye, and cheek 
scales are in agreement with Klunzinger. Bleeker figures an 
exampie a little more elongate than Day, the nind caudal edge 
TOE Go esis anaes i RU Le GG a a 
Fische Roth, “eer,, 1884, 49, Pl, 5, fig. l-a, 
iC OC WANE Ny EE SUS USN SERA OS ese A Ria AoE) SEE OO TIAL IRA 
Paces OF indie, ot, 2, 1875, Pl. 25, fig, 4, 
