Fishes of Bi'ooLhaven^ L. I. 277 



Pleuronectes maculatus. Mitch. 



As the name Rhombus cannot be retained in this family, I 

 follow Dr. Dekay in adopting the old name Pleuronectes, to 

 designate the same genus. The present species, called by the 

 fishermen sand-Jlounder, is somewhat common in the sound 

 during summer, but is comparatively rare in the harbor. 

 Their habits and food are much hke those of the j^a^-y?5/i. 

 One which I had examined, had swallowed two large sand- 

 launces, one small hydrargira, and more than a dozen shrimps. 

 They are remarkable for their semi-transparent appearance, 

 and on account of their thinness, and consequent small weight, 

 are seldom eaten. They are often taken in the nets, but are 

 commonly neglected by the fishermen. This is not the spe- 

 cies described by Dr. Storer under the udnne Rhombus aquosus, 

 and considered bv him to be identical with the Pleuronectes 

 aquosus, (or more correctly maculatus) of Mitchill. I think he 

 was in error, and that the error arose from his not having 

 seen Mitchill's species. On Long Island both are found, and 

 to one examining the true aquosus, the difference from Dr. 

 Storer's description is at once manifest. The proportions of 

 length and breadth given in the two descriptions show us two 

 fish of very different shapes ; the difference in size also is 

 great. But in treating of the next species I propose to exhibit 

 the points of contrast between the two; my* largest specimen 

 of Mitchill's maculatus, to which some reference will be made, 

 is ten and a quarter inches in length. 



Dr. Dekay has given a most admirable figure of this spe- 

 cies, and a good description ; he calls it maculatus, and gives 

 as a synonym, aquosus of Storer. But how he could recon- 

 cile the two accounts, I cannot imagine. Indeed the ditfer- 

 ences were so apparent, that he could not overlook them. 

 He says, " I cannot reconcile the radial formula of my own, 

 and other describers ; " and again, " has been known to 

 weigh twenty pounds." I have never seen them, except in 

 two instances, larger than the dimensions stated above, (five 

 inches in length). These discrepancies, however, are very 



