211 



height being only equal to the length of the soft portion — the 

 second spine is stronger and higher than the third, being as high 

 as the soft portion ; in flavidus the height of the soft portion is one- 

 half greater than in ovalis — the height of the second spme is much 

 less than that of the third and does not equal half the height of the 

 soft portion. In ovalis the height of the pectorals is about one- 

 fourth the leng-th of the fish ; in flavidus the same fins are much 

 smaller, their height beini^ but a little over one-sLxth the total 

 length. In ovalis the mouth is smaller, the tip of the maxillarj 

 reaching only about the line of the anterior border of the pupil ; 

 while in flavidus it reaches the fine of the posterior border of the 

 same. 



jS. ovalis is by no means common here, only an occasional speci- 

 men being brought to the market. In size it appears to be about 

 the same as jS. flavidus. 



Sebastodes melanops. Gir. Fig. 66. 



Syn. Sebastes melanops, Gir. P. R. R. Rep., Vol. X. p. 81. 



For the purpose of comparison with the preceding I introduce a 

 figure of this species. The description by Girard (loc. cit.') is 

 tolerably accurate, but no illustration has hitherto been pubHshed. 



Dr. Ayres made the following remarks in relation to the fishes 

 of California, which are included in Cuvier's genus Sebastes. 



Of fishes of this type we have on our Coast a greater number of 

 forms than are known to exist at any other point. All the species 

 here mentioned are brought to the markets of San Francisco, and 

 are taken either in the Bay, or on the rocky shores and islands 

 immediate adjacent. They are all sold under the absurd name of 

 " Rock Cod." 



As late as July, 1861, no attempt had been made to separate 

 them into groups. At that date, Mr. Theodore Gill proposed to 

 place S. paucispinis, (Ayres) in a new genus, calling it Sebastodes, 

 " distinguished by the longer body, the very protuberant lower jaw, 

 which has a symphiseal swelling beneath, the minute scales, the 

 foiTU and armatui-e of the hea;d, the deep emargination of the dorsal 

 fin, and the emarginated caudal." A year later, in July, 1862, 

 he proposed to include all our other species (a number of which I 

 should judge he had not seen,) in a new genus Sebastichthys, with 

 " eleven to twelve (XI.-[-I. — XII.+I.) spines in the first dorsal 

 fin, palatine teeth and the physiognomy of Sebastes (^Norvegicus').'''' 



In these two propositions he appears to me to have been mifor- 

 tunate, having based his decision, perhaps, upon the examination 



