of them of five oral papillae, “the outer pair smaller than and remote from the other three” in McCulloch's specimen, and hence similar to those in the “Maimai “specimen, and a single fimbriate maxillary velum. McCulloch describes the lateral teeth in his specimen as tubercular, the inner ones each developing an angular cusp which is longest in the median line. He does not, however, give any indication of the number of teeth.

Waite (1921) in his “Illustrated Catalogue of the Fishes of South Australia,” under the title of D. brevicaudatus, figures a stingray with a disc broader than long; an anterior profile that is very much more obtuse than in either McCulloch 's or the “Maimai” specimens; and a tail that is one and one-third times the length of the disc. There can be little doubt that this specimen is not D. brevicaudatus, for in both McCulloch's and the “Maimai” specimens the anterior profile is less obtuse, and the length of the tail is subequal to the disc, a feature described by Hutton (1875). McCulloch (1921) notes the discrepancy and remarks that “Mr. Waite informs me it was not an Australian specimen”. In the same paper McCulloch figures a tail of D. brevicaudatus, and mentions that in three specimens from New South Wales, one had six large spine-bearing tubercles middorsally on the tail and anterior to the serrated spine, the second had one, while the third had none. A specimen from South Australia, loaned to McCulloch by Waite, had five of these tubercles.

Whitley (1940) gives a general account of D. brevicaudatus and illustrates the species with dorsal and ventral views (after McCulloch. 1915); with dorsolateral and ventral views of a very large specimen taken off Adelaide in 1935 (after Gudger, 1937); and with a photograph of part of one jaw (after Waite). The latter illustration shows the medial part of a jaw-plate with 23 rows of teeth in pavement. The arrangement of the teeth is not markedly oblique, or quincuncial, but tending to be anteroposterior. Each tooth has a symmetrical triangular base with the apex of the triangle bluntly rounded and directed anteriorly. The base of the triangle is produced posteriorly into a sharp, median, elongate cusp. Such teeth have no parallel in the “Maimai” specimen, where the base of each tooth is rhomboidal, and the cusps present are little developed and bluntly pointed. Moreover, the teeth in the “Maimai” specimen are in oblique rows, and not arranged anteroposteriorly. The teeth of the New Zealand specimen of D. brevicaudatus described by Waite (1909) were stated to be in 25 series, arranged quincuncially, and each tooth with a shallow transverse groove, but obviously this description does not fit the teeth figured in Whitley's account. Apart from the arrangement of the teeth, and the nature of each tooth, it is clearly apparent that Waite's figure in Whitley shows only a median portion of the jaw, and as 23 rows of teeth can be counted in this portion, the total number of rows must far exceed the 25 rows which Waite (1909) states are present in the New Zealand specimen of stingray he identified as D. brevicaudatus These facts lead to the conclusion that neither the New Zealand specimen identified by Waite (1909), nor the teeth figured in Whitley (after Waite) can belong to the species D. brevicaudatus.

Whitley also identifies as D. brevicaudatus a large female stingray (9 feet 11 inches total length) caught off Kawau, New Zealand, by Seymour George in 1880. But in George's (1881) account, the length of the tail is stated to be 6 feet, thus making the disc length approximately 4 feet and hence considerably shorter than the tail. In D. brevicaudatus the tail is subequal to the disc. Obviously

George's specimen cannot be placed in this species, but was more likely a specimen of D. thetidis Waite, 1899, which has the tail one and one-half times the length of the disc, and which has since been recorded from New Zealand (Richardson and Garrick 1953, A & B).

Barnard (1925) in his monograph of the marine fishes of South Africa, recognises five species of Dasyatis from his area, but of these, he believes that only D. schreineri (Gilchrist, 1913) is allied to or possibly synonymous with D. brevicaudatus. The description he gives of a 6 feet long specimen agrees closely with that of Hutton, McCulloch and the “Maimai” specimens. The disc is smooth, broader than long; the tail tuberculate, subequal to the length of body, with a cutaneous fold below not reaching to the tip of the tail and deepest anteriorly where it is three-quarters the height of the tail at the same level; a series of middorsal spines on the tail; and the teeth with transverse ridges and in about 48 rows. A young male 3 feet long has the “tail slightly longer than the disc, with one large spine preceded by a small one, 5 cutaneous flaps on the floor of the mouth, teeth in 33 rows”. Barnard retains the distinction of D. schreineri from D. brevicaudatus because his specimens of the former have from 33 to 48 rows of teeth, whereas Waite (1909) states that D. brevicaudatus has 25 rows of teeth. But, as has been shown above, there is good evidence to doubt the validity of Waite's specimen as D. brevicaudatus, and in addition there are 45 to 50 rows of teeth in the “Maimai” specimen, this number agreeing with the number present in the larger specimen of D. schreineri. The fewer rows of teeth (33) in the smaller specimen is in all probability a juvenile feature. As the original description of D. schreineri by Gilchrist (Trans. Roy. Soc. S. Afr. III, 1913 : 33, text-fig.) is not available to me, it is not possible to compare Gilchrist's illustration of the species with the “Maimai” specimen, but the characters noted in Barnard's description (disc shape and proportions; armature; the nature of the tail and ventral fold; the presence of five oral papillae; and the teeth number) all suggest D. brevicaudatus.

Smith (1949) illustrates and diagnoses D. brevicaudatus from Southern Africa. His illustrations of the species comprise a dorsal view of a complete specimen and an anterior view of a set of jaws. The dorsal view of the complete specimen agrees generally in outline and proportions with the “Maimai” specimen. The length of the tail is, however, slightly longer than the length of the body. There appear to be several middorsal tubercles in front of the serrated spine. The view of the jaws, though on a very small scale, shows teeth arranged primarily in longitudinal rows, and each tooth definitely long-cusped, in this respect resembling the teeth figured by Whitley (1940–after Waite), but in no way being similar to the teeth of the “Maimai” specimen. There appear to be about 40 rows of teeth in the upper jaw and something more than 30 in the lower jaw. In the synonymy of D. brevicaudatus, Smith lists D. agulhensis Barnard, 1925, as well as D. schreineri (Gilchrist, 1913). But from Barnard's description of D. agulhensis it is seen that this species, although agreeing with D. brevicaudatus in general disc shape, and presence of a ventral fold on the tail, differs in the following features: the presence of spinate tubercles on the point of the snout, in front of the orbits and on the middle of the back; the tail one and one-third times the length of the body; the ventral cutaneous fold extending to or almost to the tip of the tail, its depth about one-third the depth of the tail; and nine oral papillae present (three median, and one submedian and two lateral on each side). There