File:Transactions of the Royal Society of New Zealand (1911) (14781867025).jpg

Identifier: transactionsofro1911roya (find matches)
Title: Transactions of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Year: 1911 (1910s)
Authors: Royal Society of New Zealand
Subjects: Science
Publisher: Wellington, N.Z. : The Society
Contributing Library: Brigham Young University Hawaii, Joseph F. Smith Library
Digitizing Sponsor: Consortium of Church Libraries and Archives

View Book Page: Book Viewer
About This Book: Catalog Entry
View All Images: All Images From Book
Click here to view book online to see this illustration in context in a browseable online version of this book.

Text Appearing Before Image:
g together it is found that the whole of the skin ofone side and of portion of the other remains, so that it is possible tocorrectly render an account of all the fins, and the number and dispositionof the dermal scutes. The whole of the body, with the exception of thevertebrae, is missing ; but if all the vertebrae are represented, as I believethey are, their total number is 17, and this is also the number supplied forHalieutaea, another member of the order. Of Aegoeonichthys Giinther also writes, Unfortunately, nothing isknown of the gills of this fish, which, as regards grotesqueness of form,surpasses the fishes of the preceding genus (Himantolophus). It is evidentlyclosely allied to Himantolophus reinhardtii, and I therefore suppose that itpossesses the same number of gills. If this should prove to be the case,the question will arise whether it should be kept as the type of a distinctgenus. * Giinther, Challenger Reports, vol. 22, 1887, p. 51. Pbans. N.Z. Inst., Vol. XLTV. Plate X.
Text Appearing After Image:
Face p. lyj..) Waite.—Notes on New Zealand Fishes. 195 The gills in the present example are, fortunately, preserved, but as Icannot refer to Lutkens paper* in which Himantolofhus reinhardtii wasdescribed and figured, I am not in a position to decide the question as togeneric identity. It is, however, possible that with the aid of the followingdescription others more fortunately situated may be able to do so. The figure published in illustration of Clarkes paperj- is somewhatcrude, and, gauged by the characters of our example, incorrect as regardsthe cephalic tentacle and the number and disposition of the dermal scutes.I have therefore thought fit to refigure the species from the assembledremains of the specimen intrusted to me. I have also essayed a descrip-tion of the specimen, but owing to the imperfect condition it will be under-stood that the proportional measurements are merely approximate, or,it may be, even conjectural. These remarks apply, however, only to therelative width

Note About Images