Part 59

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: