Depth one-fourth of the length: first anal commencing nearly in a line with the first dorsal.

G. luscus & barbatus, Linn. Syst. Nat. torn. i. p. 437. Turt. Brit. Faun. p. 90. G. barbatus, Block, Ichth. pl. 166. G. luscus, Don. Brit. Fish. vol. i. pl. 19.? Morhua lusca & barbata, Flem. Brit. An. p. 191. Bib and Blinds (Cornubiensibus), Asellus luscus, Will. Hist. Pise. p. 169. Asellus mollis latus, Id. App. p. 22. tab. L. m. 1. n. 4. Pout & Bib, Penn. Brit. Zool. vol. iii. pp. 183, & 184. pl. 30. no. 76. Id. (Edit. 1812). vol. iii. pp. 246, & 247. pl. 34.


From ten to twelve inches, seldom more.


{Form). Remarkable for the great depth of the body, equalling, at least, one-fourth of the entire length: sides compressed: back slightly arched, and somewhat carinated; nape in particular offering a sharp ridge, which commences in a line with the eyes, and extends nearly to the dorsal: head about one-fourth of the entire length, exeluding caudal: snout obtuse and rounded; upper jaw a little the longest: a single row of sharp moderately long teeth in the lower jaw; the same in the upper with a hand of smaller teeth behind: barbule at the chin about one-fourth the length of the head: eyes large; their diameter one-third the length of the head; invested with a loose membranous skin capable of inflation; the distance between the eyes less than their diameter: scales not particularly large: lateral line curved, the flexure taking place beneath the commencement of the second dorsal; anterior to which its course is at rather more than one-fourth of the depth: beneath the lower jaw, on each side, a row of seven or eight open pores: fins thick, fleshy at the base, invested with a loose skin: first dorsal commencing at about one-third of the entire length, excluding caudal; second and third rays longest; fourth and succeeding ones gradually decreasing; the last very short; greatest height of this fin about two-thirds the depth of the body: second dorsal commencing at a very short interval after the first; more than twice its length; third ray longest: third dorsal closely following the second; in length, a little exceeding the first; third and fourth rays longest: first anal commencing in a line with the second ray of the first dorsal, and terminating in a line with the last ray of the second dorsal; the rays gradually increasing to the eleventh, which is longest, the first being very short: second anal immediately following the first; answering to the third dorsal; fourth ray longest: caudal nearly even: pectorals about three-fourths the length of the head; third and fourth rays longest: ventrals long and narrow; the first two rays very much produced beyond the others, terminating in slender filaments; the second, which is the longer, rather more than equalling the length of the pectorals: number of fin-rays,

D. 12 - 23 - 19; A. 35 - 21; C. 31, and some short ones; P. 18; V. 6: vent directly beneath the commencement of the first dorsal. {Colours). Whitish, inclining to dusky olivaceous on the back; sides tinged with yellow: fins dusky, becoming paler at the base; a dusky spot at the root of the pectorals.

Common all along the southern coast, where it is taken in considerable quantities for the table. Found also in other places. It is the Whiting Pout of the London market. Obs. I have ventured to bring together (as Bloch has already done before me) the G. luscus and G. barbatus of authors, under a strong belief that they form but one species*. Should I be wrong in holding this opinion, the minute description which I have given above of the Pout, as it occurs at Hastings, where my specimens were obtained, will not be without its use in enabling future observers to point out more precisely than has been hitherto done, the essential differences between it and the true G. luscus.

* This opinion has not been adopted hastily. I have in vain sought for any author who has described both the supposed species from his own observation, and after a due comparison of their respective characters. The error of considering them as distinct appears to have originated with Ray, the Editor of Willughby's Ichthyology. It would seem that Willughby was the first to describe a fish (called in Cornwall Bib or Blinds) under the name of Asellus luscus, a species evidently the same as the Pout of the Southern coast, to which Willughby's description, as far as it goes, applies exactly. After that the body of his work was printed, Ray, his Editor, appears to have received from Martin Lister, along with other novelties, a short account of the Whiting Pout of the London market, to which he gave a separate place in the Appendix, never suspecting that it might be the same as what had been already described by Willughby under the name of Bib. Hence the two nominal species, which were afterwards perpetuated by Ray in his "Synopsis Piscium;" and either to that work or Willughby's, the descriptions of all succeeding authors, so far as regards one of the species, when they have noticed both, may ultimately be traced. This is the case with Artedi, in the instance of the G. luscus. He simply refers to Ray and Willughby, annexing a short character, apparently taken from the description by the author last mentioned. This character is repeated by Linnaeus in his " Systema Naturae, accompanied by a reference to Artedi. Pennant's account of the two species is partly copied, and partly original: his description of the Pout is perhaps his own; but that of the Bib is in a great measure taken from Willughby, and although he has made one or two additional remarks, as well as annexed a figure, I question whether these were derived from any fish specifically distinct from his Whiting Pout. Gmelin, who, with respect to the G. luscus, only compiles from Willughby and Pennant, appears to have suspected that the two fish were not really different. Berkenhout states nothing beyond what is mentioned either by Willughby, Pennant, or Gmelin. Turton's descriptions of the two species are evidently compiled from Pennant and Gmelin, excepting as regards the number of fin-rays in the G. luscus, in which there is manifestly some error. Lastly,

(25). Lord-Fish

Mr. Yarrell possesses the drawing of a fish (itself, unfortunately, not preserved) which was brought to him some years since, under the above name, by the Thames fishermen, and which was said to have been taken at the mouth of that river. In general form, it approaches the G. luscus, but it differs remarkably from that species, in having the first anal much shorter, and more rounded, commencing at a further distance from the head, and leaving a considerable space between itself and the second anal; the vent also, which in G. luscus is in a line with the commencement of the first dorsal, is here in a line with the commencement of the second dorsal, or hardly so far advanced, being nearer the tail than the head. The number of fin-rays is as follows:

D. 14 - 19 - 18; A. 17-ll; C. 24; P. 14; V. 6.

It is impossible to do more than thus briefly indicate the existence of a fish, which, if not a case of accidental deformity*, may hereafter turn out to be an undescribed species.