YOUNG JACK CREVALLES 



491 



Caranx latus Agassiz 



(Figures 69-72) 



i 



Caranx latus Agassiz, in Spix and Agassiz, 1831, p. 105 



pi. LVI b, fig. 1 (Brazil). 

 Caranx lepturus Agassiz, in Spix and Agassiz, 1831, p. 106, 



pi. LVI b, fig. 2 (Brazil). 

 Caranx fallax Cuvier, in Cuvier and Valenciennes, 1833, 



p. 95 (West Indies and Brazil). 

 Caranx richardi Holbrook, 1860, p. 96, pi. XIII, fig. 1 



(near Charleston, S. C). 

 Caranx hippos (non Linnaeus), Giinther, 1860, p. 449 (in 



part; St. Vincent; Jamaica; Puerto Cabello; South 



America; West Indies; excluding records other than 



Atlantic). 

 Carangus fallax, Gill, 1863, p. 433 (Charleston, S. C). 

 Carangus aureus Poey, 1875, p. 76 (Cuba). 

 Caranx sexfasciatus (non Quoy and Gaimard), Jordan, 



1886b, p. 36 (Havana, Cuba). 

 Xurd lata, Jordan, Evermann, and Clark, 1930, p. 272 



(tropical Atlantic to Virginia). 

 Caranx sexfasciatus latus Agassiz (non Quoy and Gaimard), 



Nichols, 1936, p. 119 ("more or less replaces C. hippos 



on off-shore islands of the Atlantic"). 

 Caranx sexfasciatus fallax Cuvier (non Quoy and Gaimard), 



Nichols, 1938a, p. 2 (Bermuda; West Indies; Florida 



and northward;? Atlantic coast of Panama). 



Nomenclature 



A geographic distinction based on usage should 

 be applied to Caranx latus of the Western Atlantic 

 and the closely related, if not identical, C. sex- 

 fasciatus Quoy and Gaimard of the Indo-Pacific 

 until significant comparisons of the two popula- 

 tions have been made. 



Earlier authors (Jordan and Gilbert, 1883: 200; 

 Jordan 1887: 531; Jordan and Evermann, 1896: 

 923; and others) considered the name C. sex- 

 fasciatus to be unidentifiable and referred to both 

 populations as C. latus. Jordan and Evermann 

 (1903: 337) and Jordan and Seale (1906: 231) 

 later used C. sexfasciatus to refer to the Pacific 

 forms. The practice then evolved to use the 

 geographic distinction stated here. Nichols 

 (1938a) incorporated these two forms into a cir- 

 cumtropical species divisible into five subspecies 



of C. sexfasciatus; but, because he used a relatively 

 small number of specimens and his criteria of 

 separation were not too convincing, his treatment 

 has not been generally accepted. 

 Material 



Measurements and counts were taken on a 

 series of 57 specimens from 16.1 to 172 mm. 

 standard length, and meristic values were re- 

 corded for an additional 31 specimens within this 

 size range. The 106 specimens identified are 

 shown in table 19. 



Nichols (1939: 6) described two specimens of 

 latus (under the name C. sexfasciatus fallax 

 Cuvier) of 12 and 15 mm., from Atlantis station 

 1934, 36°48' N., 68°55' W. to 38°59' N., 69°46' W., 

 August 27 to 28. I examined two specimens from 

 the Bingham Collection which are similarly 

 cataloged and may be the ones examined by 

 Nichols, but they are so badly damaged that 

 identification of them as latus is tentative. The 

 smaller specimen measures between 12.7 and 13.0 

 mm., the larger about 16.4 mm. Measurements 

 of body parts of these specimens that were not too 

 distorted are included on the graphs. 



Three specimens of latus from Bermuda were 

 apparently misidentified as hippos by Barbour 

 (1905: 119). This negates one of the two records 

 of hippos from Bermuda that I have found. 

 Barbour described as hippos a specimen taken on 

 hook-and-line and two specimens of MCZ 

 28989. The collection number given for the last 

 two seems to be incorrect — the jar of specimens, 

 37 mm. and 57.5 mm. in length, is numbered 

 MCZ 28979. A third fish, MCZ 32076, 77 mm. 

 long, is labeled hippos from Bermuda of the 

 Barbour Collection, and may be the specimen 

 described as taken on hook-and-line. These 

 three specimens are latus. They have completely 

 scaled chests. The mean numbers of scutes for 

 the fish measuring 37 mm., 57.5 mm., and 77 mm. 

 respectively are 32.5, 35.5, 32.5; the mean lateral- 



