MUGIL. 71 
II. Second dorsal covered with small scales. 
A. Anal rays usually IIT 9. 
1. 42 to 46 scales in a longitudinal series. 
Second dorsal spine longer than first. . . . 1. ee 6 ee ee ew ee 8 aneilis. 
Second dorsal spine not longer than first . 2. 2 1.) 1 ee ee ee thoburni. 
2. 36 to 39 scales in a longitudinal series. 
Pectoral % to 3 the length of head, extending nearly to the vertical from the 
origin of the spinous dorsal in the young, but not inthe adult. . . . . 5. curema. 
Pectoral from + to as long as the head, extending to below the spinous dorsal, 
eveninthe adult . . 2. 1. 1. eee ee ee wee ew ee 6 hopes. 
B. Anal rays usually III 8; 32 to 36 scales in a longitudinal series . . 7. trichodon. 
1. Mugil cephalus, Linn. 
Mugil cephalus, Jord. & Everm. Bull. U.S. Nat. Mus. xlvii. 1896, p. 811, and 1900, fig. 343. 
Hab. Japan; Sandwich Islands; Pacific Coast of America from California to Chile ; 
Atlantic Coast of America from Cape Cod to Brazil; Atlantic Coast of Kurope 
and Africa from the Loire to the Congo. 
2. Mugil brasiliensis, Agass., 1829. 
Mugil brasiliensis, Jord. & Everm. Bull. U.S. Nat. Mus. xlvii. 1896, p. 810. 
Had. Atlantic Coast from Cuba to Patagonia. 
3. Mugil incilis, Hancock, 1830. 
Mugil incilis, Jord. & Everm. Bull. U.S. Nat. Mus. xlvii. 1896, p. 812. 
Hab. Atlantic Coast from Panama to Brazil. 
4, Mugil thoburni, Jord. & Starks, 1896. 
Mugil thoburni, Jord. & Everm., Bull. U.S. Nat. Mus. xlvii. 1896, p. 812. 
Hab. Pacific Coast from Guatemala to Ecuador and the Galapagos Islands. 
5. Mugil curema, Cuv. & Val., 1833. 
Mugil curema, Mugil gaimardianus, and Mugil setosus, Jord. & Everm. Bull. U.S. Nat. Mus. xlvii. 
1896, pp. 813, 814, and 815. 
Mugil curema, Jord, & Everm. t. c. 1900, fig. 344. 
Hab. Pacific and Atlantic Coasts from the United States to Chile and Brazil; Cape 
Verde Islands. 
The examination of a large series of examples (including one received from Dr. Jordan 
as Mugil setosus) has shown me that the length of the pectoral fin compared to that 
of the head varies but little according to the size of the individual, but if its length be 
compared with its distance from the spinous dorsal it appears to be longer in young 
