Page:The Zoologist, 4th series, vol 6 (1902).djvu/148

This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
114
THE ZOOLOGIST

some specimens of both species at the Natural History Museum, South Kensington, I at once recognized the Sand-Lizard as similar to the ones I obtained.—Michael J. Nicoll (10, Charles Road, St. Leonards).

PISCES.

The Saw-fish (Pristis antiquorum) in British Waters.—In the notice of my "Notes and Letters of Sir Thomas Browne" (ante, p. 79), the writer, after quoting the statement by Browne that a "sword fish or Xiphias or Gladius" was taken "intangled in the Herring netts at yarmouth," adds on my authority that this "appears to be the only authentic record of this southern species in British waters," which is far from being the case. The note in which the above statement occurs does not refer to this species, but to the Saw-fish (Pristis antiquorum), respecting which Browne writes:—"A pristes or serra saw-fish taken about Lynne comonly mistaken for a sword-fish and answers the figure in Rondeletius" ('Notes,' p. 36); then follows the account of the Sword-fish in a separate paragraph. In my footnote to Pristis antiquorum I say that, "so far as I am aware, Browne's is the only record of the occurrence of this southern species in British waters, with the exception of a note in Fleming's 'British Animals' (p. 164), where it is stated, on the authority of the late Dr. Walker's MS. 'Adversaria' for 1769, that Pristis antiquorum "is found sometimes in Loch Long"; but Fleming adds that he has "met with no other proof of its ever having visited the British shores." Any further information with regard to this species as a British fish would be gladly received.—Thomas Southwell (Norwich).

[Mr. Southwell is quite justified in his correction, "Sword-fish" having accidentally been substituted for "Saw-fish" in the notice referred to. However, although the Sword-fish is undoubtedly sometimes taken in British waters, it still seems doubtful whether Browne's record of the Saw-fish will be generally accepted. Mr. Boulenger—with whom I recently discussed the question—certainly did not believe the fish had ever reached our shores.—Ed.]