FLOUNDERS Ol" GENUS PARALICHTHYS AND RELATED GENERA 



315 



iiiaxillarv. hear! and deptli. However, there is 

 luoi'i' oi- less inti'ijiradation in all of these struc- 

 tuial (liaraclers. In tlie comparatively few speci- 

 mens studied the <xreatest diver<rence is sliown by 

 the relative lenjrtli of tlie head and maxillary in 

 the standard length, when specimens of like size 

 are compared (tahle S) : but in view of the varia- 

 tion of this character with the size of the fish and 

 the few specimens available for measurement, it 

 is doiilitful whet her it will prove more divergent 

 than tlie other characters, after measuring a large 

 series. In fact, the two species are so closely re- 

 lated that they may be distinguished only when 

 taken in bulk, in a group of specimens. The 

 proper identification of individual specimens 

 would often i)rove quite uncertain by a study of 

 structural differences only, unless the locality of 

 capture be known. The relation between hrasi- 

 lieiusix and woohnani looks very much like another 

 example of the numerous similar cases where two 

 species from both sides of the isthmus of Panama 

 show small and slightly overlapping differences. 

 "\Miile hm-silioMis is not now positively known to 

 occur on the Atlantic coast of Panama, it is pos- 

 sible that it will eventually be found there. 



Economic importance and size. — ^The material 

 studied by me indicates that this is probably the 

 most common species of Paralichthys on the At- 

 tlantic coast of South America, and the common 

 commercial flounder, the linguado or lenguado, on 

 the coasts of Brazil, Uruguay, and Argentina is 

 (|uite likely the present species. Berg's (1895) 

 record of a species of Paralichthys reaching one 

 meter in length, probably refers to this species. 

 However, in view of the fact that the several spe- 

 cies on the coast of South America api)arently have 

 not been distinguished properly heretofore, the 

 question of its economic importance as well as 

 the maximum size to which the present species 

 attains must be left for future determination. 



Nomenclature and synonymy. — The original 

 description of brasiliensis fails to take account of 

 important characters, and the application of that 

 name must be attended with considerable doubt 

 wlien dependent only on the original account. 

 From the figure and description it may be gathered 

 that Ranzani's species is sinistral, of medium 

 depth. It has rather low vertical fins; short, 

 synmietrical ventrals; a short pectoral; a large 

 mouth ; large teeth ; a well developed anterior curve 



in the lateral line. It is apparently a species of 

 Parali'hfhys. Assuming it to belong to that 

 genus, the only substantial characters, of those in- 

 vestigated in detail during this study and also 

 mentioned in the rather lengthy original descrip- 

 tion, are the number of fin rays ; D. 69, A. 53, P. 11. 

 The figure disagrees with the description in that 

 it shows only 4S anal rays. The numbers in the 

 vertical fins may very readily fall within the range 

 of variation of three species now known from that 

 region, namely, the present species, fro/>irn-s and 

 vorax. The number of pectoral rays is one more 

 than in the single specimen of rorax examined by 

 me. but one specimen is, of course, not of decisive 

 importance in this case. Ranzani's figure shows 

 rather large scales, in about 50 oblique rows over 

 the straight part of the lateral line, rather like 

 vorax., but the number of scales is not mentioned 

 in the description and in view of apparent inac- 

 curacies shown by Ranzani's figures in general, 

 the size of the scales of the published figure of 

 ira.siliensis camiot be accepted as a reliable guide. 

 As far as I know nobody ever redescribed the type. 



In view of these uncertainties, the best we can 

 do now is to follow later revisers. Jordan and 

 Goss (1889) were the first authors to use the name 

 hra^siliensis in a definite sense. They gave a recog- 

 nizable description of a species of Paralichthys to 

 which they applied Ranzani's name. The species 

 described by them is evidently the same as the one 

 described herewith and 1 iollow these authors in 

 their nomenclature. 



Norman ( 11>;;4) substitutes the name orhic/nyana 

 for this species and applies the name hrasil iensi^s 

 to the species described by (runther, under the 

 name of vorax and here so designated. This 

 creates an unfortunate confusion of names which 

 is possibly unnecessary. The name orbignyana 

 is apparently not a\ ailable for this species as dis- 

 cussed on pages 303 to ;'>ii4. Regarding the name 

 iwrax. Ranzani may have had specimens of that 

 species when he described his hraxilieimx; but 

 judging by the specimens examined in the National 

 Museum and thos*> I'ecorded by Norman in the 

 British Museum, the ])resent species appears to be 

 much more common than the one described by 

 Giinther as vorax, and the probabilities are much 

 greater that Ranzani had specimens of the present 

 species. Furthermore, the authors presenting the 

 best accounts of this species, in addition to that of 



