OCR Text |
Show 40 PROF. F. J. BELL ON ECHINANTHUS TUMIDTJS. [Jan. 15, Considering that these fishes have shown no tendency to monstrosities, have been well formed, and grown fairly in proportion to the young of the true American Charr hatched at the same time, I cannot resist thinking that it may be possible that these two fish, although so widely differing in colour, may be merely varieties of one species, descendants from one common stock. This question, however, will be more appropriately discussed when we possess fish a year or two older. "On November 29th, 1883, about 4500 eggs were obtained from a Lochleven trout which had been hatched in 1875, and these were milted from a young Salmon, such as I have already described, which was taken for this purpose from pond C. 130. These eggs were deposited in box 88. About 3000 eggs were taken from a Lochleven Trout of the season of 1875, and fertilized from the milt of two American Charr. These eggs were deposited in box 92. About 2695 eggs were taken from an American Charr and milted from a young Salmon from pond C. 130. These ova were deposited in box 96. About 1000 eggs were obtained from a Brook-Trout of about lib. weight and fertilized from the milt of the dead young salmon already referred to. These eggs were deposited in box 100. 5. O n the Generic Position and Relations of Echinanthus tumidus, Woods. By F. J E F F R E Y B E L L , M.A., Sec. R.M.S., Professor of Comparative Anatomy in King's College. [Received December 18, 1883.] (Plates II. & III.) For some years past our knowledge of the Echinoidea has been increased by the descriptions of various new species, published by the Rev. J. E. T. Woods, which have appeared in the ' Proceedings ' of that excellent body the Linnean Society of N e w South Wales. Of such forms the most remarkable was that which was distinguished by him as Echinanthus tumidus1; m y knowledge of thisspecies was confined to the short description which he gives of it, but that description was sufficient to rouse my curiosity. It was, therefore, with the greatest pleasure that I found an example of it among a set of specimens which Mr. E. P. Ramsay lately submitted to m e for determination. The original diagnosis had made it clear to m y mind that the species did not belong to the genus Echinanthus ; and an investigation of the characters of the specimen itself lead m e to the belief that it presents very important points of difference from any form yet described. 1 Proc. Linn. Soc. N. S. W . ii. p. 169. |