Notes on certain typical specimens of American fishes in the British Museum and in the Museum d'Histoire Naturelle at Paris

(1)

218 PROCEEDINGS OF UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM.

dd.Brown,obscurely spottedwithdarker. Vomerineteethdonotextend nearlyso farbackas the palatine latifrons.*

cc.Unicoloi-ed.

e. Brown; D.84; C.17;^scalesnone; nostrilmidwaybetweeneye and mouth; headcontained 2^ (!) times in total length; 6

caninesinTipperjaw orientalis.

ee. Dark brown;vomerineserieslongerthan^palatine,andextends fartherback; D. 81; C. 20-21; ^scalesfew; nostrilnearer eye than mouth; head contained 4^-41 times intotal length; 4

canines inupperjaw.. ^• lepturus.

A

partial

synonymy

ofthespeciesis

appended

:

1.Anarrhichas lupusLiun6.

AiiarrhichasJiqm.^LiNNifi, Syst.Nat.,I,1766, p.430: DEKAY,Nat.Hist.N.Y., Fishes,1842, p. 158,^pi.xvi,fig.43.

Anarrhichas romerinusStorer,Hist. Fish.Mass.,1867, p. 99,pi.xyiii,fig.1.

2. AnarrhichasminorOlafsen.

Anarrhichas minorOlafsen,ReiseiIsland, 1772,§6836, p. 592, tab. 42.

Anarrhichas pantherinusZuiew, Nov.Act. Petrop.,1781,p. 271, tab.^6.

AmrrhichashojyardusAgassizinSpix,Pise.Bras., 1829, p. 92, tab. ^11.

3. AnarrhichasorientalisPallas.

AnarrhichasorientalisPallas,Zoog. Rosso-Asiat.,1831, p. 77, tab.xi.

4.Anarrhichaslatifrons Steenstrup«feHallgrimssou.

AnarrhichaslatifronsStp.

&

Hallgr.,Forh.Skand.Naturf, 3die Mote,1842, p.647:COLLETT,Chra. Vid.Selsk.Forh.,1879,No.1,p. 46,pi.ii.

Anarrhichas {Lycichthys) latifrons Gill, Baird'sAnn.Rec. S.

&

^I.^for ¹⁸⁷⁶

(1877), p. clxvii.

fAnarrhichasdenticulatus Kr5yer,Overs. Vidensk. ^Selsk.Kjobeuhavn,1844, p.140:Gaimarp, Voy. enScand.,etc., Zool., Poiss., 1845,pi. 12.

5.Aparrhichasfasciatus Bleeker.

Anarrhichas fasciatus Blkr., Nederlandsch Tijdschrift voor de Dierkunde, Amsterdam, Deeliv,1874, p. 151.

U.S.National Museum,October 25, 1879.

NOTK!^ ON CERTAIN TYPICAI. SPECIMENS OF AMERICAN FISHES

IN

THE BRITISH MUSEUM AND

IN

THE MUSEUM D'HISTOIRE NATUREU.I.E AT PARIS.

By DAVID

S.

JORDAIV,

Ifl.

D.

In arecentvisitto

Europe

thewriter has

bad

theprivilegeofexam- iningthe originaltypesof certain species of

American

fishes,described

*AnarrhichaslatifronsandA.denticulatusaremadethe type of adistinctsubgenus byProfessor Gill,whoinoposestoseparjitothese from tho lupus typebythe following characters: Thegreater convexityandlongitudinal arching of theskullatthe posteriorfrontal region,and themuchgreater extensionbackwardsof tho palatineseriesof teethascompared^{with the}vomerineband. Examina- tionof the largecollectionof the three Atlantic speciesofAnarrhichasinthe NationalMuseumhas convincedmethatthese characters have not the taxonomic value claimed^forthem, owingtotheirgreat variabilityinindividxtals. TheflgureapublishedbySteenstrup(Vid.Medd.naturh. For.K.job., 1876, tab.iii)represent extremes of A.minor andA.latifrons,which, without accesstomanyexamplesof bothspecies,wouldbo misleading. A. minor,for instance,sometimes has thevomerinebandofteeth extendinglittlefartherbackthanisobservedinA.latifrons. Thedentition ofA.latifrons, too,issub- ject toconsiderable variationwithage,asisthe shape of theskull. A. minor seemstoshowcloser aflBnitytoA.latifronsthantoA.lupus.

(2)

by

Dr.Albert Giinther from specimens ⁱⁿtheBritish

Museum, and by

Cuvier,Valenciennes,

and

othersfrom examplesin the

Museum

at Paris.

Notes

on some

of these,the properidentification of

which may

affect our nomenclature,areherepresented.

1. MicropterusdolomieuLacepede.

Lae6pede, Histoire NaturelletiesPoissonsiv,324.

The

originaltypeofthisspeciesisalargespecimen,stillingoodcon- dition. Its peculiarity,

which

led to its separationfrom"irtftrifs"

by

Lacepede,isthatthelastraysof the dorsal aredetached fromthe others,

and somewhat

distorted,the result of

some

accident to thefishwhile young.

The

injury to thespecimen ^is thereforenota

museum

mutila- tion,asI

had

heretofore understood, but a healed

wound.

Thisspeci-

men

belongsto thesouthern variety of thesmall-mouthedBlackBass, recognized

by me

(Bull.U.S.Nat. Mus.,xii, 1878,p.30) as Micropterus salmoides var. salmoides. Prof. Yaillant recognizesthisformprovision- ally

(MSS.

Mission Scientifique

au

Mexique)asadistinctspecies {Mi- cropterusdolomieuLac.)fromthenorthernform,but thedifferences

seem

to

me

to

have

no

more

thanvarietalvalue.

As shown

below,thereis little

doubt

that thespecific

name

dolomieu, isthefirstever distinctlyapi^liedtoour small-mouthed

Black

Bass, as the

name

Micropterusisitsearliestgeneric appellation. Unless

we

adopt theearliersalmoides,its

name

should, therefore,beMicropterus dolomieu.

On

theother

hand

itistruethat the

name

Micropterus dolomieu

was

applied to a deformed specimen,

which was

considered as a distinct

genus and

species solely

on

accountofitsdeformity.

Itis

an

established rule of nomenclature (Dall, Eept.

Comm.

Zool.

Nomenc,

48,)that "a

name

shoiddbe rejected ^* ^* ^*

when

itex- presses

an

attribute or character positively^{false in}themajorityorthe

whole

of the

group

in question, as in cases

(among

others)

when

a

name

has

been

founded

on

a monstrous, abnormal, immature,artificial, or mutilated specimen."

The name

Micropterus

was

founded

on

a monstrous specimen; in the senseintended

by

itsauthoritexpressesafalsecharacter,although the species really

have

smallerfins thanarefoundinrelated genera. In the opinionof

some

writersitshouldbesetaside

and

thenext

name

in order {CalUurusEaf.)shouldbe adoptedⁱⁿitsstead.

The

species

might

then standas CalUurusdolomieu.

The

specific

name

" dolomieu"isalso

open

to objection, asitisa

French noun

having neithera Latin nor a genitiveform,but being

an

unmodified

name

of aperson. Tbis hardly

seems

to

me

a reason forrejectingthe

name,

although,ifretained,it

shouldreceiveagenitive form, as dolomii, or dolomiei.

The

question of theadoptionof the

name

Micropterusis stillan

open

one.

The

weight of authorityis, however,at j)resent in fiivor of its retention,

and

thewriter seesnosuflQcientreasonforsettingitaside.

(3)

220 PROCEEDINGS OF UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM.

2, Grystes sahnoidesCuvier

&

Valeucienties.

LabrussahnoklesLac^pede,Hist.Nat. desPoiss. Ill, 716.

GrystesmlmoidesCav.

&

Val., Hist.Nat.de.sPoiss. Ill, 54, pi. 46.

Itseemsrather athanklesstaskto reopen the questionoftheproper

nomendature

ofthe

Black

Bass,hutit isevidentthat

we have

not yet reached the bottom.

The name

Micropterussalmoidesis

now

generally adoptedin

America

as theproper

name

ofthesmall-mouthed Black Bass, not only

among

naturalists,but

among

anglers

and

sportsmenaswell.

In the

Museum

at Paris,however, the

same name

isfullyadoptedfor the large-mouthed BlackBass. Let us inquire intothe history of the useofthe

name

salmoides.

In1800, the

name

Lahrus salmoides

was

given

by Lacepede

toafish inhabitingthewatersof Carolina,

and known

to

Americans

as "Trout."' This fish

was known

to

Lacepede

onlythrough a

drawing and manu-

script description

by

Bosc.

Both

speciesofBlack

Bass

occurinCaro- lina,thelarge-mouth

most

abundantly. Neither

drawing

nor descrip- tionis exact

enough

toenable us totell with certainty, or even with reasonableprobability,

which

species

was meant by Bosc and

Lacepede.

Itisunlikely that

Bosc

discriminated

between them

atall,bothbeing- alike

"Trout"

tothe Carolina fishermen. In thefigurethe

mouth

^is

drawn

large,

and

if

we

mi(sfchoose,the large-mouthisbest represented.

The

specific

name

salmoides next appears in the great

work

ofCu- vier

&

Yalenciennes(III, p.54) as Grystes salmoides.

The

description here givenisforthe

most

partapplicable tobothspecies; thesmallsize ofthescales("il

y

en aquatre-viugt-dix sur

une

ligne longitudinale et trente-sixon quarantesur

une

verticale"*)

and

the

naked

preopercuhnn render itevident that at least that partof the description

was

taken from a small-mouth, whiletheaccomjianyiugfigure

more

resembles the large-mouth.

We

are,however, not hereleftindoubt.

The

original material of the

French

naturalistsis stillpreservedinthe

museum.

It consists of the followingspecimensasdescribed

by

Cuvier

and

Valenciennes

:

1. "I^ousavonsre^u,par

M.

Milbert,

un

individudehuit aneuf pouces et

un

desixasept. C'estce deniier quiasixrayonsala

membrane

des ouiesetquatorze rayons

mous

aladorsale."

From

oneofthese specimens thefigure in the HistoireNaturelledes Poissons(pi.4G)

was

taken.t This specimen isunquestionably alarge-

mouthed

BlackBass.

2. "Plustard,

M.

Lesueur nous en a envoyd de^{la riviere}

Wabash un

individulongdeseizepouces, ettroisautres qui n'enoutguere

que

cinq.

Les jeunessontd'un vertpluspale,etoutsurchaqueflanc vingt-cinqa trente lignes longitudinales et paralleles brunes, qui paraissent^s'effacer avecPage."

These specimensarestillpreserved,bearingthe

MSS. name

of Ciehla variabilis

Le

Sueur,

and

belong to the small-iliouthed species. This

*Thevery small precaudalscalesare doubtless here included.

iFide Vaillant.

(4)

name,

which,so far as I

know, was

never published

by Le

Sueur,isthus noticed

by

Cuvier

and

Valenciennes:

"•

M.

Lesueur, croyantI'espece nouvelle,en a public

une

description

dans

leJournal dessciences a Philadelphie,sousle

nom

decichla variabilis; niaisnous avoustoutlien de croire

que

c'estce poissonqui est representset decritpar

M.

de

Lacepede

(t.iv, p.71Get717,etpi. 5, fig.

2),sous le

nom

de^lahresalmoide, d'apresdes notes et

une

figure four- uiespar

M, Bosc

quile

nommait

j^erca trutte.

La

^figureenest

un peu

rude,mais la description s'accorde avec ce

que

nous avons vu, sauf quelquesdetails,qui tienuent pent-etre moins an poisson

meme

qu'ala maniere dontila6t6 observe."

Later (vol. v, p. v),thetypeofMicropterus dolomieu

was

re-examined

and

fullyidentified

by

CuvierasaGrystes salmoides.

Itisthus evidentthatCuvier

and

Valenciennes completely confounded the

two

species under the

name

Grystes sahnoides,

and

that the uncertain salmoides of

Lacepede became

^{in their}

hands

a

complex

species.

We mayperhaps saythat their salmoidesmust bethefishdescribedby them,and that the figure is tobe takeninto considerationonlywhen

other evidence is wanting.

M.

Vaillant, however, maintains that the large-mouthed species should be consideredas the salmoides ofCuvier

and

Valenciennes,

inasmuch

asoneof that speciesservedas thetypeof theirpublishedfigure.

The

^next^writers

who

use the

name

salmoides(De

Kay,

Storer,etc.),

have

merely copied orechoed the description of Cuvier

and

Valen-

'ciennes,

and have

in

no way

givenprecision to the

name.

Later Agassizuses the

name

^{^^}salmoneus''^ (slip of the

pen

for"saZ- moi<7es"?)apparentlyreferring tothe large-mouthedspecies.

The

descriptiongiven

by

Dr. Giintherof Grystes salmoides in the Cat- alogueof theFishesofthe British

Museum,

I,252,adds nothing^tothe precision ofour

knowledge

of thespecies,the charactersgivenbeingeither taken from Cuvier

and

Valenciennes,orelse

common

tobothspecies.

by Holbrook

(Ich. S.

Car.,p. 28,pi. 4,f.2),

accompanied by an

excellentfigure,

which

leaves

no

possible

doubtof

thespecies intended. Thisisthe large-mouthedBass.

Omitting])apers of lesserimportance,

we come

finallyto theveryable discussion of these questions

by

Professor Gill (Proc.

Am.

Ass.

Adv.

Sci.,1873,p.55-72), iu

which

the

whole

subjectisexhaustivelytreated,

and

the

name

Micropterussalmoidesisdefinitelyadopted for the small-

mouthed Black

Bass. This arrangement has been followed

by most

recent ichthyologists. In

an

important paperjust

now

passingthrough the press (Mission Scientifiquean Mexique), however,Messrs. Vaillant

and

BocourtliaA^eadoptedthe

name

Micropterus salmoides for thelarge-

mouthed

species,forthereasonsindicated above.

Thisquestion resolvesitselfinto two. Is thespecific

name

salmoides availableforeitherspecies!

and

ifso,for

which?

Between

the publication of the

works

ofLacepede

and

Cuvierboth

(5)

222 PROCEEDINGS OF UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM.

species

had

been

more

than once described under different

names by

Eaflnesqne

and Le

Sueur.

Of

these names,Lepomis palUdus Eaf. for the large-mouthed BLickBass,Micropenis dolomieu Lac. forthe south- ern,

and

Bodianns achk/an Eaf. for the northernvariety of the small-

mouth have

priorityoverthe others. Allthese, therefore,antedate

any

precise definitionofthe

name

sahnoides.

The

question as to wliether a specific name,at first loosely applied

and

afterwardspreciselyfixed,shallclaim priorityfromits first useor not,hasbeendifferentlyanswered

by

different writers,

and

hasperhaps never been settled

by

general usage. I suppose that the

amount

of doubtorconfusion arisingfrom its use or rejection enters with

most

writersasanelement.

The name

sahnoides,leftunsettled

by

Lacepede, hasbeengenerallyreceived

by

writers, inconsequenceofthesupposed precisiongiven to it

by

Cuvier.

We have

seen, however, that both species

were

included

by

Cuvierunder one

name, and

that

we must

look fartherforreal restrictionof the species.

The

^first^distinct useof the

name

sahnoides for

any

particular speciesis

by

Holbrook,forthe large-

mouthed

form.

On

the basis ofthefirstunquestionablerestriction,the name,ifusedatall,

must

be appliedto that species. Forty years ^pre- vious tothis restriction,however, thespecific

name

j^a?ZiV7?fs

was

conferred onthe

same

fish

by

Eafinesque.

Inthe writings of nearlyallthe older naturalists, as well as in

many

ofthe later ones,

we

find descriptions of species

which

are really generic in theu" value,

and

which,asour

knowledge

of species

becomes

greater,cannot be disposed ofwith certainty or even with

any

high degree of probability, for absolute certainty rarely accompanies

any

identification.

In the absence or impossibility of

any

general ruleregarding such cases, the followingsupposedexampleswillillustrate

what

seemsto the presentwriterafair

method

oftreatingthem.

Let us suppose thatthegenus Micropferus contains

two

well-marked species; that tooneofthesethe

name

sahnoides

was

early applied; that nextthe

names

dolomiei

and

paUidus

were

applied to the

two

respect- ively,

and

that subsequentlythe

name

salmoides

was

restricted totheone calledpaUidus.

Now

if (1) the original sahnoides

were

definitely a

complex

species, distinctlyincludingboth,

we may

holditsauthortobea "conservative"

writer,

and

that the subsequent restriction, likethe restriction of a genus,isa

change

ofvieworthe elimination ofanerror. Inthis case, the

name

sahnoides should beretained,datingitspriorityfromitsorig- inaluse,

and

applyingtothespeciespalUdus.

If₍₂₎ the original sahnoidesbe not complex, but simplyuncertain,tlie probabilities being undeniably in favor ofits identity with paUidus ratherthan withdolomiei,itshouldbe adoptedinstead ofj7rt//</7/^s^ Abso- lutecprtaiutyof identificationcannot be expectedof

many names

older thanthepresentgeneration,

and

eacliwriter

must

judgeforhimselfof

(6)

PROCEEDINGS OF UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM. 223

thedegreesof probability. If

we may

expressitnumerically,a proba- bilityof 75per cent,should perhaps be sufiicient,

and

this probability shouldbe

unquestionable—

that is,not merely subjective

and

varying withthementaldifferences of the different writers.

If (3)the originalsalmoidesheevidentlya Mcroj^fena, buthopelessly uncertainas tothe species intended,itshould claim priorityfromits first use for a definite species of Micropterus. Ifthe

name

pallidus intervene

between

its firstuse

and

itsfinalprecise use, salmoidesshould

become

a

synonym

oiimUidus.

and

should notbeavailablefortheother species. Thisruleisfollowed

more

orlessconsistently

by most

writers,

and

it seems to

me

a fair one.

The

revival of hopelesslyuncertain ancientspecific

names

inplace of well-defined

modern

onesisproductive onlyof confusion,

and

is

open

to gross abuse.

The

revivalevenofwell- defined but forgotten

names

is confusing enough,

and

it has been strongly objected to

by many

writers.

If(4) the

name

salmoides^left hopelessly uncertain

by

its author, should

have

beendefinitelyusedfor

some

species to

which

it

might

not improbably

have

referred heforethe use ofthe

name

pallidus forthe

same

species,itshouldberetained,datingits acceptance from its sec-

ond

use,

and

the

name

pallidus should be consideredasa

synonym

of salmoides.

If(5) the

name

salmoidesshould

have

been adopted

by

the second author supposed in(4)for

some

species notaMicropterus^or for

some

species

which

could not reasonably beidenticalwith the original salmoides^ the identificationshouldbe takenas

an

erroneousone,

and

should not

be

consideredinour nomenclature.

The

actual state of the

name

salmoidesisthat supposed

under

(3)above.

Ido notconsider the

name

salmoidesas rightfully entitled to priorityover either pallidus or dolomiei as the specific

name

ofa speciesof

Black

Bass. Ifit

must

be used,however,Ithinkitwisest to retainit,with Professor Gill, for the small-mouthed species.

For

this purpose,

we must

consider the salmoides of

Lacepede

as complex, including both species.

The

case

would

thenbethatsupposed

by

(1)above.

We must

holdfurther that Cuvier

and

Yalencieunesrestricted the

name

tothe small-mouthedform.

No

possible settlement of the case

can

befree

from

questionor objection. Iproposetoadoptthe following^4ewof the case, l^roposed

by

Dr.Gill(in lit.),to

whom

I

have

submitted the evidence

above

given.

Dr.Gill

remarks

"_Ithink

we

canretainourold

names

(i.e.Micropterus salmoides

and

Micropterus pallidus)

on

the followinggrounds:

"(1) Let us admit that Lahrus salmoides Lac.

may

he the small- mouthed.

'•'(2)

The name

salmoides,it

may

beconsidered,

was

re-established

by

Cuvier

and

Valenciennes forthelargestspecimen(thesmall-mouthed, accordingtoyourobservations).

The

description

was

evidentlybased

(7)

onthat,asappears from the

number

ofscales,theabsenceof

any

onthe preopercular limb ("le limbe de sonpreoperculefete]en manqueut"),.

and

the formofthe dorsal.

Even

if itis certain thatthe iigure

was

takenfrom a large-mouthed specimen,this

would

notaffectthe question,

inasmuch

as

we must

acceptthe description

when

thatisdefinitive,

and

suchisthecase here.

"(3) It

may

be held that tlie

name

is farther specialized

by

Cuvier

and

Valenciennes

by

itsusetosupersedethe

name

of

Le

Sueur(p.55),

and

as a substitute for

M. Dolomieu

(vol.v, p.5).

"(4)

The

majorityofthe C.

&

^V.'sspecimens belongedto the small-

mouthed

Bass.

"(5)

The

figure

was

based on a large-mouth simply through accidence ofsize

and

condition,notselected

on

accountofexhibition of characters.

Inthe

same

way,

we might

maintain that thetypeofPomotisvulgaris C.

&

V. (although the descrii^tion plainlypoints to Eupomotis aureus)

was

Lepomis palUdus [ratherauritm]^ for the figure apparentlyrepre- sents such."

3.MicropterusvariabilisVaillant

&

Bocourt.

Cichla variahilisLeSueur,MSS.

MicropterusvariabilisVaillant«feBocourt,MSS., Mission ScientifiqueauMex- ique.

Thisistheordinary northernsmall-mouthed

Black

Bass, Micropterus achigan, or var.aohigan of authors, Micropterus salmoides a^higan ofthe presentwriter.

4.Bryttus unicolor Cuvier

&

Valeucieunes.

Hist.Nat.liesPoiss.vii,464.

A

specimencollected

by Le

SueuratPhiladelphia,

and

doubtlessthe original type,seemstobe the

young

ofLepomis avritus.

Some

ofthe specimenslabelledPomotisvulgarisare likewiseLepomisauritus.

From

oneofthesethefigureofthespecies

was

apparently'taken.

5. Bryttus puuctatus Cuvier

&

Valenciennes.

Hist.Nat.desPoiss.vii,462.

Tlietypes ofthis species(Charleston,

Holbrook

Coll.)belongtothe species recentlydescribed

by

Prof.

Cope

asLepomis apiatus (Proc.

Am.

Philos.Soc,1877)

and by me

asLepiopomusapiatus(Bull.U.S.Nat.

Mus.

X,1877,25). ThisspeciesshouldthereforestandasLepomispunctatus.

6.BryttusreticulatusCuvier

&

Valenciennes.

Hist.Nat. desPoiss.vii,463.

Thisspeciesisunquestionablyidenticalwiththe preceding,

7.Pomotisholbrooki Cuvier

&

Valenciennes.

ThisspeciesisthePomotisspeciosusofHolbrook, Pomotismicrolophus Giinther. ItshouldthereforestandasEupomotisholbrooki. Xystroplites longimanus Cope, isat leastverysimilar,as alsoPomotispallidus

Ag.

(8)

8.Pomotiscatesbyi Cuvier

&

Yaloncienues.

Hist.N:it. (lesPoiss.vii,4G9.

As commonly

supposed,thisspeciesisEupomotis aureus [Pomotis vul- garisC.

&

^v.).

9. Pomotisravenelii Ciivier

&

Valenciennes.

ThisspeciesisanUupo^notis,probablyaureus,assupposed

by me

(Bull.

U. S. Nat.Mu3.s, 38),but the types are too far decayed forcertain identification.

10. Pomotisgibbosus Cuvier

&

Valenciennes.

His.Nat. desPoiss.vii,467.

The

typesofthisspecies,aswell as those ofFomofis incisorC.

& V»

(1.c.p. 440),belongtothespecies called

by me

Lepomis paUidus.

11.PomotissolisCuvier

&

Valenciennes.

Only

thePhiladelphia specimensseen. Thesearebadly decayed, but probably belongtoEupomotisaureus.

12.Plesioperca ancepsVaillant.

(NonvellesArchivesduMus6umd'Hist.Naturelle,tome9,p. 37, 1873.)

As

alreadysupposed

by

thepresentwriter, this speciesistheHadrop- terusnigrofasciatns Agassiz.

13.EesoxdeprandusLeSueur.

(LeSueur MSS., Cuv.

&

Val.Hist.Nat. desPoiss. xviii, 336.)

The

type of this species, alarge stuifed shin,is

an

ordinary

Esox

luciiisL.

The

cheeks, as usual, are scaly; theopercles

naked

below.

14. Leuciscusgardoneus Cuv.

&

Val.

(Hist.Nat.desPoiss. xvii,316;Giinther Cat. FishesBrit.Mus.vii,258.

CkondrostomagardoneumCope, Trans.Am.Phil. Soc.1866,393.)

The

singletypicalspecimenof this species agreeswith Noteniigonus clirysoleueusin

most

respects, differing chiefly in the short anal(9or10 developed rays). It

must

be referred to the genus Noteniigonus, of

which

it possesses the carinated

abdomen, backward

dorsal,

and

the teeth 5-5,the edgesofthe grinding surftice strongly crenate. Ifthe specimen isnormal, not

an

accident or hybrid, the speciesshould stand as N'otemigonus gardoneus. ProfessorCope's statement,that the type of this species(also

examined by him

in Paris)is" identicalwith Chon drostoma in dentition

and

other characters,"is not reconcilablewith

my

ideas of thegenus Ckondrostoma.

15.LeuciscusspirlingulusCuv.

&

Val.

Hist.Nat. desPoiss. xvii, p. 321,pi.GOG.

The

typesaresmall specimensofLuxiluscornutus(Mitch.).

16. GobiocataractaeCuv.

&

Val.

Hist.Nat. desPoiss.xvi, 315,pi.483.

The

typeofthis species,asalreadysupposed

by me

(Man.Vert.E.U.

S.,ed.2d,p. 307),is the EJdnichthgs nasutus of authors,

which

should Proc.i^^at.

Mus.

79 15

Jaii„ SO, 1880.

(9)

thereforestandasEhinicMhyscataracta'.

The

teethofthe typicalspeci-

men have

neverbeenexaniined.

The

difference inthedentitionoiGobio

and

EJiinichthysdoes nottherefore aft'ect the correctness of this identification.

17. Leuciscus boucardiGiiuther.

Cat. FishesBrit.Mus.vii,485.

The

teethofthisspecies

have

avery

narrow

grinding surface. Itis tliereforeprobably referable to thegenus Myloleucus asunderstood

by

18. CeraticlithyssallasiGUuther.

Cat.FishosUrit.Mus.vii,484.

As

this species has no bnrbels, the propriety of its reference to Ceraticlithysisnotevident. Ithasthe teeth4-4 with grinding surface,

and

istherefore referable tothe genus Hudsonius{RyhopsisCope)as

now

understood

by

nie.

19. CeicitichthyscumingiGiiiitber.

Cat. FishesBrit.Mus.vii,177

This species is a true Ceraticlithys^ evidently closely related to C.

amhlops. Itperhaps

was

nottakeninCalifornia.

20. Graodusnigrotaeniatus Giiuthcr.

Cat.FishesBrit.Mus.vii,485.

Therearethree typical

examples

ofthisspecies.

The

teethof

two

of

them

were

examined by

Dr. Giinther,

and

liave,asstated

by

their de- scriber,"i)haryngeal teeth quite rudimental replaced

by

a

somewhat uneven

ridge ofthe bone."

The

third specimen,however,proved

on

examinationto

have

developedteeth,ofthe ordinarysort, two

on

each

side. Traces ofthe roots of similar teeth were visible on the other specimens,butinnone were

any

evidencesofthe existence of a greater

number.

It is,therefore,possible that thenormal

number

is 2-2. It is

my

opinion,however,that the teeth arenormally 4-4,

and

that in these examples they

have

been lost, either

by

natural shedding or tlirouglithesoftening

due

tolong preservationinspirits. Ifthisview

iscorrect,the genus Graodus should be suppressed.

As

theteeth are without grinding surface,the species shouldbe referred to thegenus Cliola, as understood

by

me,

and

should stand as Cliola niyrotmniata.

Ifthe teeth arenormally2-2,the

genus

Graodus should beretained.

Tliewriter wishestoexpresshis obligations toDr. Giinther for the permissionto

examine

these

and

otherspecimensintheBritish

Museum, and

toI'rofessorsVaillant

and Sauvage

for similar favors at the jMu-

seum

at Paris.

October20,.1879.