GILBERT AND 8TAKKS — I'ISFIES OF PANAMA BAY 181 



Family DACTYLOSCOPI D/K. 



325. Dactyloscopus zelotes Jordan & Gilbert. 

 Only the type known, collected at Panama by Captain J. M. Dow. 



Family URANOSCOPID^. 



326. Kathetostoma averruncus Jordan <i- BoUman. 



Known from the type, dreilged in Panama Bay at Albatross Station 2800, in 7 

 fatboms (Jordan & BoUman, 1889, p. 103). Recorded by Garman (1890, p. 75) from 

 deptbs of 56 to 210 fatboms. 



Family BATRACHOIDIDiE. 

 327. Batrachoides pacifici (Giinther). 



Very abundant at Panama, appearing daily in the markets; the young abun- 

 dant in the tide-pools of the reef. The youngest specimen obtained by us is 24 mm. 

 long, and shows a well-developed adhesive disk between the ventral fins. In a 

 specimen 30 mm. long, no trace of the disk remains. In the young, the ground color 

 is much lighter than in adults, while the black cross-bars on body and fins are much 

 more conspicuous. 



In their account of this species. Meek and Hall (1885, p. 61) make two serious 

 errors, which are repeated by Jordan and Everraann (1898, p. 2314). The scales 

 are said to be ctenoid, whereas they are perfectly smooth, with entire edges; and the 

 anterior mandibular teeth are described as in two rows, while they are in a cardiform 

 band, some or all of the outer and the inner series enlarged as strong conical 

 canines. In the outer row there seem to be regularly two or three pairs of these 

 canines. 



The upper lateral line is interrupted under the middle of the soft dorsal, the 

 lower line at a point slightly posterior to this: the two are then continued at the 

 immediate base of dorsal and anal respectively, and are again interrupted near the 

 ends of these fins, to reappear on caudal peduncle at their former levels; they are 

 discontinued on the base of the caudal fin, but are each represented on the fin itself 

 beyond the base by a series of two or three pores. 



The smaller number of fin-rays and the much larger eye serve readily to 

 distinguish this species from surinnmensis and boukngeri. In dentition, it seems to 

 agree more nearly with the latter. 



(24) January 5, 1904. 



