446 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OP 



and their reference to two genera belonging to different sections is simply the 

 result of a difference of interpretation of the same fact in the two cases, on 

 account of their examination from isolated points of view. The dorsal has 

 such a form that in one case it appeared to the learned French naturalists to 

 be double, and in the other to be rather a single one. On the most casual ex- 

 amination of the plates of the Etelis carbunculus (pi. xviii.), and the Serranus 

 oculatus (pi. xxxii.), it is evident that there is the closest external resem- 

 blance, which applies to the form of the dorsal fin as well as to every other 

 feature of the external organization. 



Deceived by the imposing authority of the great ichthyologists by whom 

 the two species referred to were described, and by Dr. Giinther's acceptance of 

 the same opinion, after an examination of specimens of each, I had sup- 

 posed that some generic difference must exist between those two species, 

 which had not been rendered sufficiently clear by the authors. I had long 

 noticed the great resemblance of the two species, but was willing to believe 

 that they might belong to distinct genera as the squamation of Etelis was so 

 represented as to remind one of a Holocentroid fish. I had only casually seen 

 the Serranus oculatus in the infancy of my ichthyological studies, and the 

 remembrance was not sufficiently vivid to enable me to certainly identify 

 that species generically with the Etelis carbunculus. The recent reception at 

 the Smithsonian Institution of a fine specimen from my esteemed correspon- 

 dent, Prof. Poey, at once assured a certainty of the close affinity of the two 

 species so often named. 



My attention was further at once arrested by characteristics which previous 

 observers had failed to express, and which rendered it certain that instead of 

 being a Serranus, or even an Anthias, it was rather related to the Lutjaninai, 

 and especially to the genus Platyinius, and that it consequently belonged to a 

 different family. 



The learned Troschel, in a most valuable and suggestive article in the 

 " Archiv fur Naturgeschichte,* has first pointed out the true characters which 

 distinguish the family of Sparoids as a natural group. Although I shall have 

 occasion to dissent from the views of that naturalist respecting the limits of 

 the family, eliminating some of the forms that have been referred to it, while 

 1 would combine others that have been distributed among different ones, it is 

 with much pleasure that I add that the latter modifications are the conse- 

 quence of, and naturally flow from the results of the investigations of Troschel, 

 if we assign less value than he did to the dentition, and that the former are 

 caused by the different views that have originated respecting the character of 

 families since the period at which that ichthyologist wrote. 



Etelis then is proclaimed to be a Sparoid on account of the reception of the 

 maxillary bones beneath the preorbital bones, the existence of a dorsal groove 

 in which the fin is folded, the presence of pointed axillar scales, and the 

 acutely pointed pectoral and caudal fins.f By all these characters it is dis- 

 tinguished from Serranus and Anthias as well as the other Percoids. On ac- 

 count of all these characters it equally agrees with the family of Sparoids, and 

 to that family it consequently must be referred. The artificial nature of that 

 classification, which would place the Lutjaninse in a distinct family from Den- 

 tex, and the allied genera, or which would equally separate the Lutjaninse 

 and the Hoplopagrinse, and which at the same time would refer Lutjaninae to 

 the vicinity of Serranina? on account of the presence of palatine teeth, is too 

 evident to be commented upon, especially after I shall have added that there 



> *Dr. F. H. Troschel " Ueber die Begrenzung der Familie der Sparoiden," in Archiv fur 

 Naturgeschichte, 15er Jahrgang. ler band, pp. 382386, taf. viii. 



t The scales are more like those of Sillago than any others represeuted by Troschel, 

 but the concentric strise in front of the nucleus are obsolete, and consequently have more 

 of a Sparoid character. 



[Sept. 



