-----
Footnote 1:
_Hist. des Poiss._ tom. ix. p. 317. I refer to the quarto edition
throughout.
Footnote 2:
In this and in all other cases, Mr. Darwin has used _Werner’s
Nomenclature of Colours_, by Patrick Syme.
Footnote 3:
I have employed this term to designate the slender curved teeth,
arranged in several rows, which Cuvier calls _en cardes_, or, when
less numerous and rather more developed, _en crochets_. They much
resemble the _prickles_ found on some plants.
Footnote 4:
There are actually only three below in this specimen, but there is
little doubt of four being the normal number, one appearing to have
been lost.
Footnote 5:
The absence of the usual fan has suggested the name of _Arripis_, from
α priv. et ριπις, flabellum.
Footnote 6:
Or at least as represented in the figure in the Histoire des Poissons,
tom. iii. pl. 56.
Footnote 7:
As described by Cuvier and Valenciennes to be the case in the _P.
Brasilianus_.
Footnote 8:
Cuvier in his description, says, of the seventh ray, “fort petit,” but
it is very obvious in this specimen, and scarcely smaller than the
sixth, as above stated.
Footnote 9:
Probably these teeth are liable to be lost or broken off, so as seldom
to occur in exactly the same number and mode of arrangement in two
individuals.
Footnote 10:
As stated by Cuvier and Valenciennes.
Footnote 11:
In the _A. cataphractus_, the body is hexagonal from the gills to a
little beyond the vent; octagonal from this last point to the
termination of the dorsal and anal fins; then hexagonal again to the
end of the tail.
Footnote 12:
Faun. Bor. Amer. Part Third, p. 49.
Footnote 13:
Is it not possible that this may be found to be also the case with
several of the foreign species described by Cuvier, in which the
absence of these teeth has been rather presumed than ascertained from
actual examination?
Footnote 14:
Cuvier seems to have attached much value to the character of teeth on
the palate; but I agree with Dr. Richardson, (_Faun. Bor. Am._ Part
iii. p. 19.) in considering it “of little importance as a generic
character in some families of fish.” And the author last mentioned
notices an instance (exactly analogous to that of the _Aspidophorus
Chiloensis_) in the _Thymallus signifer_, which, he says, “resembles
the common grayling very closely in its general form, but differs from
it in having palatine teeth.”
Footnote 15:
In its general characters it does not depart from the _A.
cataphractus_ of the British seas, anything like so much as the _A.
quadricornis_, and _A. monopterygius_ do.
Footnote 16:
Judging from the figure in the “Voyage de l’Astrolobe (Zoologie),” pl.
10. f. 4.
Footnote 17:
Called by mistake in the plate “magnified scales.”
Footnote 18:
This portion of the fin is not quite correctly represented in the
plate, being made too low, in consequence of the rays having been
broken at their extremities in the specimen figured.
Footnote 19:
Since the above was printed, Mr. Waterhouse has been kind enough to
show me in the museum of the Zoological Society the specimen which he
believes to be the one procured by Mr. Cuming. Unless the characters
are very much altered by age, it is decidedly distinct from the _A.
hispidus_ above described. The general form indeed is the same; but
the skin is perfectly smooth, marked with vertical striæ; the
granulated ridges on the head are less prominent, and the superciliary
ridges without spines. The fin-ray formula is not quite as stated by
Mr. Bennett, who appears, in his computation, to have mistaken the
last dorsal spine for one of the soft rays of that fin, and also to
have over-estimated the number of soft rays in the anal. The formula
is really 18/12; A. 1/9, &c. I have no doubt of Mr. Cuming’s fish
being the true _A. Peruvianus_; whilst the one here characterized as
new is probably the young of a nearly allied species. Mr. Cuming’s
specimen is six and a half inches long.
It may be advantageous to science to mention here, though not
immediately connected with the present inquiry, that another species
of _Agriopus_ in the museum of the Zoological Society, which was seen
by M. Valenciennes during his visit to this country, and referred by
him in the “Histoire des Poissons” to the _A. verrucosus_, proves not
to be that species, but the _A. spinifer_ of Dr. Smith, recently
described by him for the first time in his “Illustrations of the
Zoology of South Africa.”
Footnote 20:
Serræ figuram habens. A πριων.
Footnote 21:
With the exception of a small rough oblong spot, near the posterior
extremity of the left palatine.
Footnote 22:
The third spine is broken, and may have been as long as the fourth.
Footnote 23:
There are actually nine, but one appears to have been lost.
Footnote 24:
Στεγαστης, tector.
Footnote 25:
_G. chrysurus_, Cuv. et Val.
Footnote 26:
This part is exactly as described by Cuvier and Valenciennes in the
_Lichia Amia_, to which genus the present one is so nearly allied.
Footnote 27:
_Lichia Amia_ is represented as having nine; and this forms another
mark of affinity between the two genera.
Footnote 28:
There are scales on the cheeks in _Lichia_, according to Cuvier and
Valenciennes, but I see no appearance of them in this genus.
Footnote 29:
In the _C. trachurus_, the bend begins in a line with the commencement
of the second dorsal, and from its more gradual obliquity, extends
over a space equal to that occupied by nine fin-rays.
Footnote 30:
According to Mr. Lowe, however, the _B. palmicornis_ is common at
Madeira, (see _Proc. of Zool. Soc. 1829_, p. 83), and a specimen
received from him, undoubtedly belonging to that species, is in the
Museum of the Cambridge Philosophical Society.
Footnote 31:
See “Hist. des Poiss.” tom. xii. p. 72, under the species _Gobius
Boscii._
Footnote 32:
_Freycinet Voyage_, (_Zoologie_) p. 286.
Footnote 33:
_Voy. dans L’Amer. Mérid._ Atl. Ichth. pl. 5. fig. 1.
Footnote 34:
Swainson is of opinion that “more than double the number of species of
_Exocœtus_ really exist above those that have been described.”—_Nat.
Hist. of Fishes_, vol. i. p. 299.
Footnote 35:
Thesaurus, vol. iii. pl. 34. f. 3.
Footnote 36:
_Voy. dans L’Amer. Mérid._ Atl. Ichth. pl. 9. fig. 2.
Footnote 37:
Ab απλους simplex, et Χειρων tunica.
Footnote 38:
Valenciennes says, in his preface to the fifteenth volume of the
“Histoire des Poissons,” that none of the _Siluridæ_ have the
subopercle; and that the absence of this bone serves to distinguish
them from _Cobitis_.
Footnote 39:
In the pilchard it is one-fifth.
Footnote 40:
_Excursions in Madeira_, p. 234, fig. 44.
Footnote 41:
In the _E. enchrasicholus_, it is hardly one-fourth of the length,
excluding caudal.
Footnote 42:
I am indebted to Mr. Yarrell for the loan of a specimen of our common
Anchovy for comparison.
Footnote 43:
_Nat. Hist. of Jamaica_, Pl. 246, fig. 2.
Footnote 44:
_Pisces Brazil_, p. 89, tab. L.
Footnote 45:
I notice this circumstance, because Mr. Lowe, in the “Proceedings of
the Zoological Society,” (1839, p. 89.) has briefly described two
species of this fish, which he calls _E. Remora_ and _E. pallida_
respectively, the former having the tongue _smooth_, and the latter
_rough_ in the middle, besides other differences.
The above specimen obtained by Mr. Darwin, as well as two others in
the Museum of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, have the tongue
rough; though in their other characters, especially colour, they would
seem to be Mr. Lowe’s _Remora_. Cuvier, in his “Regne Animal,” appears
to consider the rough tongue as characteristic of the whole genus.
Footnote 46:
_Syst. Ichth._ pl. 96.
Footnote 47:
pp. 13, 14.
Footnote 48:
Surely this cannot be the same as the _T. Honckenii_ of Bloch?
Footnote 49:
This character, though mentioned in the description, is not, however,
represented in the figure. See _Freycinet’s Voyage_ (_Zoologie_),pl.
47. f. 2.
Footnote 50:
_Hist. des Poiss._ tom. 5. p. 356.
Footnote 51:
Ab ιλος limus, et κοιτη cubile.
Footnote 52:
One of these is gone in this specimen, but the socket in which it was
implanted is obvious.
Footnote 53:
A φυκος fucus, et κοιτη cubile.
------------------------------------------------------------------------