GILBERT AND STARKS — FISHES OF PANAMA BAY 111 



208. Orthopristis brevipinnis (Sleindachner). 

 I'l.ATK XV, ri.i. 30. 



Four 8pociincii.s, from 28 to ;>1 cin. long, were obUiiiieil by us in llie I'liiuuna 

 iiiaiket; no others were seen. 



The species has been made the type of a distinct genus {hnciella Jordan & 

 Fesler), difTering from Orthopristis in the presence of accessory scales, from Micro- 

 lepidotus in the larger scales, the presence of accessory scales on the bases of the 

 larger ones, and the shorter spinous dorsal. A re-examination of Microfepidotus 

 inornntus (Magdalena Bay, Albatross collection) shows however llial the scales have 

 been incorrectly enumerated in that species. They are in reality of the same size 

 as the scales in Iireoipinnis, there being GO in the lateral lino. There are furthermore 

 numerous small accessory scales on the bases of the larger ones. The dorsal and 

 anal are scaled in inornntus, almost as fully as in brevipinnis. The two species are 

 very closely related, differing principall}' in the relative sizes of the two dorsal fins. 

 This diflerence is not greater than that occurring between species of Pomadasis or 

 Anisotretnus, and seems not worthy of generic recognition. In one specimen of 

 0. iyiornatus from jNIazatlan, we find 15 dor.sal spines. The only character to separate 

 the two species as a generic group {Microlepidotus) distinct from Orthopristis, is the 

 possession of the small accessory scales on the sides. This character appears also in 

 BracJnjdeuferus, where elonr/ntus and axillnris possess it highly developed, while 

 nitidus and corcinwformis are without it. We have no indication of the condition in 

 the type of Brachydeuterus {auritus). Should the latter have no accessory scales, 

 the subordinate group consisting of elongaius and axillaris would be without distinct- 

 ive name. We have preferred to reduce Microlepidotus to the rank of a subgenus, of 

 equal value with Evapri»tis, which forms a transition between it and the ordinai-y 

 forms of Orthoj^ristis with naked fins and no accessory scales. 



Steindachner's description of the type of brevipinnis (1870rt, p. 10, PI. V) 

 refers unquestionably to the present species, but the accompanying figure is so poor 

 and inaccurate as to suggest a very different fish. Prominent among the unfortunate 

 features in this drawing are: the upper contour, whicli should be evenly curved from 

 snout to caudal peduncle; the dorsal spines, which should be longer and slenderer; the 

 soft dorsal, which is much more completely scaled; the streaks above the lateral line, 

 which are much less oblique, much wider, more irregular and wavy, and less 

 numerous; the series of scales below the lateral line, with their accompanying 

 streaks, which should be horizontal, instead of oblique. 



The usual fin formula is: dorsal XIII, 17; anal III, 13 or 14. The third 

 dorsal spine is the longest, 2| to 2i in the length of the head. The lateral line con- 

 tains GO to G2 tubes. 



The scales in the species of Orthopristis are more nearly uniform in size than 

 current descriptions would seem to indicate. 0. forbesi, from Albemarle Island, 

 Galapagos Group, is said to have 80 to 85 series of scales. Examination of one of 

 the types makes it evident that the vertical rows were counted, instead of the 

 oblique rows. The number of oblique rows corresponding to the pores in the lateral 

 line is 65. 



