FLOUXDERS OF GEXVS PARALICHTHYS AXD RK.LATF,D OF.XKRA 



313 



(ialap:i<ros Islands." These authors, however, ilo 

 not indicate whether their statement is based on 

 the orij.nnal record of Jordan and Bollnian. or 

 whether they had additional unpublished informa- 

 tion showinsr that the later record of Galapagos 

 Islands is erroneous. 



Si.^e. — .Jordan (189.")) records it as reaching an 

 estimated length of "about three feet'" and that 

 most specimens are "much smaller." Outside of 

 this estimated maximum length, the largest in- 

 dividual which ajijiears to have been actually nu>as- 

 ured is given by the same author as 44 cm. (17V'l>" )  

 taken in the estuary at Mazatlan. ^lexicn. Meek 

 and Ilildebrand record a maximum length of 30.5 

 cm. The largest specimen examined by me. wjiidi 

 was also studied by Exerniann and Radciilt'e 

 (1917), is 43 cm., from Paita. Peru. 



Distinctive characters and rdafionxhip. — This 

 species may be distinguished from all others, ex- 

 cept ae.stuar/iis. of the same genus occurring on the 

 Pacific Coast of Xorth and South America, by its 

 cycloid scales. From a.estuarius w-hich occurs in 

 \niit of its range and also has cycloid scales when 

 large, it may be separated by the fewer gill rakers : 

 \2 to 15 on the lower limb of the first arch of irt/oJ- 

 )>Hini, 18 to 20 in aestuarius : the frequency distri- 

 bution of the gill raker covint in the two species 

 being sufiicicntly discontinuous to enable one to 

 distinguish individual fish with assurance. This 

 species is apparently most closely related to hraxil- 

 ierisis from the Atlantic coast. 



Si/nonj/my. — P. sinaJoae described by Jordan 

 and Abbott and recognized in the new edition of 

 the check list should be deleted and this name 

 placed in the synonymy of ivooJmani. The au- 

 thors in describing P. sinaloae have correctly indi- 

 cated the differences between their supposedly 

 new species and adspersus. except as to the width 

 of the interorbital which is approximately the 

 same when specimens of similar size are compared. 

 However, the distinguishing characters as stated 

 by the.se authors are the same which differentiate 

 n'oolmani from adspersus. These authors further 

 state that iroolmani probably differs from their 

 ■sinaloae because of the smaller number of gill 

 rakers of the former. The type of woolmani has 

 been studied. On the eyed side it has 11 well- 

 develo])ed gill rakers on the lower limb ; and 4 well- 

 developed ones on the upper limb with one short, 

 stumpy gill raker above the 4. According to my 



method of counting it would be enumerated as 

 5+11, and this is the number given in the original 

 description. On the blind side it has 12 well- 

 develoj^ed gill rakers on the lower limb with one 

 very shoi't and small but plainly perceptible gill 

 raker in front; and 4 well-developed gill rakers 

 with one tuberosity above. According to my 

 method of counting they would be enumerated as 

 4+ 13. Therefore, the gill rakers of the type speci- 

 men of v'oolmfini. even when the eyed side is con- 

 sidered, fall within the regular frequency distri- 

 bution for the species here described, which also 

 evidenth' includes sitialoae stated to have 13 or 14 

 gill rakers on the lower limb. One of the para- 

 types of sinaloae (U.S.X.M. 47486) has been ex- 

 amined, and, except for its being somewhat more 

 slender than the average specimen of wool mani at 

 that length, it does not differ from that species. 

 Gilbert and Starks who have leexamined the tyjies 

 of -sinaloae also coiu'luded that they represent 

 •specimens of the previously described woolmani. 

 Efonomie i)iijioiian(( . — This species is a food 

 fish of some importance where it occurs. Meek 

 and Hildebrand (1928) state it to be "rather com- 

 mon at Panama, and ir is of some commercial 

 value,'" and Gilbert and Starks (1904) report it 

 as "abundant at Panama."' Jordan (1895) states 

 it to be "very common ... at Mazatlan [Mex- 

 ico] . . . and is a food fish of some importance."' 

 However, no figures of the catch are available by 

 which the commercial imjiortance of the species 

 may be definitely established, 



Paraliclifliiis drntatus Goode and He.\n (in part) Proi;. 

 U. S. Xat. JIus. 2: 123, 187!) (The .specimen recorded 

 fri)iii rarasiia.v, U.S.N.M. 8436, Capt. I'age, agrees more 

 nearly with iroolmaiii and the recorded locality is most 

 prohahl.v in error althim);li the cliiiraclers nf the specimen 

 are not decisively indicative.) 



I'ttralicMhya aduprrsiis Jori).\n and Gilbert (not Stein- 

 dachiier), ihid., 5: 370, ]SS2 (Cape San Lucas, Lower 

 California). — Jord.'vx and Gii.reut, Bull. U. S. Fish, 

 ("oinm. 2: lOS, 1SS2 (Mazatlan, Mexico). — Jordan and 

 Gii.isERT, ibid., p. Ill (I'anama). — Jorua.n and Bollman, 

 Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus. 12: ls2, 1889 (the locality is given 

 as Panama, hut later changed to Galapago.* Is. by Jordan 

 and Williams, IstlC. ). .InE;nA.\, I'l-oc ("alifnrnia .\ead. Sci. 

 (2) .5: .'03. lsir>. (Mazatlan and La Paz, Mexico). 



Paralichthjis wooliiiinii Jordan and Willia.ms, Proc. 

 D. S. Nat. Mus. 19: 4.")7, 1S96 (apparently based on same 

 specimen recorded by Jordan and Boli.man. 1*89. as 

 cominu from Panama, but now assigned to Galapagos 

 Islands). 



