156 PROCEEDINGS OiT THE ACADEMY OP 



been aware that any such peculiarity as that signalized had existed. Certain 

 it is, that the species to be now described differs from Hemirhamphus, not only 

 in the dentition, but even more strikingly in general form, which at once dis- 

 tinguishes it from that genus, as it should be restricted, and approximates it 

 to the long billed and slender Hemirhamphus longiroslris. In the typical Ilemi- 

 rhamphi the body, although elongated and nearly uniform, is quite robust. In 

 the present genus (Euleptorhamphus) the proportional height is about half of 

 that in Hemirhamphus, and the beak is also much elongated. The pectorals are 

 again much longer than those of Hemirhamphus, and are pointed at their ex- 

 tremities, and they have been even compared by Valenciennes to those of the 

 Ezocozti. These characters sustain us in the belief that it forms the type of a 

 natural genus, and we now give its generic characters, those appertaining to the 

 subfamily being omitted. 



EOLEPTORHAMPHUS Gill. 



Body very slender and elongated, covered with large and high scales. The 

 eusiform, lower jaw, very long and slender, greatly exceeding the length of the 

 head. Teeth very small and panciserial in each jaw, tricuspidate in the lower 

 and subconical in the upper. Pectoral fins elongated and pointed. Anal with 

 all its rays, except the most anterior, simply branched. 



EULEPTORHAMPHUS BrEVOORTII Gill. 



The height between the vertical fins is contained between twelve and thirteen 

 times in the length from the opercular margin to the base of the caudal fin. 

 The head, from the end of the upper jaw to the margin of the operculum bears 

 a proportion to the length of the trunk of one to six and a third. The beak 

 forms about three-tenths of the extreme length inclusive of the caudal fin. 



The eye is moderate, its diameter forming little, if at all, more than a fourth 

 of the head's length (exclusive of the beak). The interorbital space is equal 

 to a diameter. The pectorals slightly exceed three-elevenths of the length 

 of the trunk. The ventrals are nearer to the margin of the operculum than to 

 that of the caudal fin, and are very small, their length only equalling a sixth of 

 the pectorals. The dorsal commences nearer to the point of the caudal than to 

 the bases of the pectorals ; its base is about as long or even longer than the 

 length of the pectorals ; about three of its rays are in advance of the anal, and 

 its last ray is above or a little behind that of the same fin. 



In the number of rays this species does not differ essentially from its con- 

 geners. 



P 22 ; A 22 ; C 3, I, 8, 9, I, 5 ; P 8 ; V 6. 



The scales appear to be firmly adherent to the body, especially on the silvery 

 portion. The color is tawny-yellow on the back and inferiorly on the tail ; 

 the head and the rest of the sides are brilliant silvery ; the silvery band is 

 quite straight above ; the beak is light or tawny-brown. 



It appears that Euleptorhamphus Brevoortii is consequently more nearly allied 

 to E. longiroslris of Ouvier than to the E. macrorhynehus, the former offering no 

 important difference in its relative height, which is said to be comprised thir- 

 teen times in the trunk, measured from the operculum to the root of the tail ; 

 in E. macrorhynehus the height is not comprised much more than nine times in 

 the same length. With the latter, it is therefore unnecessary to compare the 

 present species ; from the former, it appears to differ specifically in some of its 

 proportions. The beak in E. longirosttis is said to be a quarter of the entire 

 length ; in E. Brevoortii it is three-tenths, or a little less than a third, and is 

 consequently almost as long proportionally as E. macrorhynehus. The eye in E. 

 longirostris is a third of the head's length in diameter ; in E. Brevoortii it is only 

 a quarter. The other variations in dimensions would not be sufficient to speci- 

 fically distinguish the two fishes, but as they do not very widely differ in size, 

 the variations that have been stated appear to be specific and not the results of 



[May, 



