S. Monensis, Shaw, Gen. Zool. vol. v. part ii. p. 350. S. Cornu-bicus,ß , Gmel. Linn. torn. i. part iii. p. 1497. Turt. Brit. Faun. p. 113. Beaumaris Shark, Penn. Brit. Zool. vol. iii. p. 118. pl. 17. Id. (Edit. 1812). vol. iii. p. 154. pl. 20. Le Beaumaris, Cuv. Reg. An. torn. ii. p. 389. note (2).
Seven to nine and a half feet. Dav.
(Form). "Snout and body of a cylindrical form: greatest circumference (in a specimen seven feet long) four feet eight inches: nose blunt: nostrils small: mouth armed with three rows of slender teeth, flatted on each side, very sharp, and furnished at the base with two sharp processes; the teeth are fixed to the jaws by certain muscles, and are liable to be raised or depressed at pleasure: first dorsal two feet eight inches distant from the snout, of a triangular form: second dorsal very small, and placed near the tail: pectorals strong and large: ventrals and anal small: the space between the second dorsal and the tail much depressed, the sides forming an acute angle; above and below a transverse fossule or dent: tail crescent-shaped, but the horns of unequal lengths; the upper, one foot ten inches; the lower, one foot one inch: skin comparatively smooth, being far less rough than that of the lesser species of this genus. (Colour). The whole fish lead-colour." Dav.
No one appears to have met with this species excepting Mr. Davies, who communicated to Pennant, by whom it was first published, a drawing and description of one taken near Beaumaris. In the last edition of the ** British Zoology," there are some further particulars by Mr. Davies, including an account of a second individual stranded near Bangor Ferry, on the Anglesea side of the Menai, in June 1811. This last differed from the former specimen in having the nose smaller (though itself a larger fish), and more abruptly tapering. It was a female, and contained in its belly four young ones, each about twenty-eight or thirty inches long. Obs. By Gmelin and Turton, this-species is made a variety of the last, from which it scarcely seems to differ, excepting in its blunt snout. Donovan and Fleming regard them as the same fish. Further observation alone can determine whether either of these opinions is correct.
(4. Galeus, Cuv).