44 PAPERS FROM TORTUGAS LABORATORY vol. xxxiv 



D. 85; A. 66; scales large, thin, on the ocular side very weakly ciliate; scales in 

 lateral line with tubes, about 43 to 45. The type has D. 79; A. 57; a specimen 

 from Albatross station 7271 has D. 81 ; A. 62. 



The color pattern is a contrastive one of dark spots, some as large as the eye, 

 scattered freely on a white ground. W. H. L. 



A second specimen, 58 mm. long (standard length 46 mm.), taken west of 

 White Shoal in 7 to 11 fathoms, is doubtfully referred to this species, principally 

 because of its small mouth (approaching therein the genus Etropus) and large 

 head. The following enumerations and proportions are based on this specimen, 

 and on 4 others, including the type, ranging in length to base of caudal from 

 74 to 135 mm. The ranges of the enumerations and proportions of the additional 

 specimens are enclosed in parentheses. D. 82 (77 to 84) ; A. 63 (57 to 64) ; scales 

 40, counting oblique series (38 to 41) ; gill rakers 16 (13 to 15). Head 3.4 (3.8 to 

 4.5); depth 2.2 (1.9 to 2.1). Eye in head 3.4 (3.6 to 4.1); snout 5.8 (5.0 to 6.0); 

 maxillary 3.4 (2.5 to 2.8); caudal peduncle 2.55 (1.75 to 2.2); pectoral of ocular 

 side 1.93 (1.3101.7). 



It is evident from the foregoing that the small specimen from Tortugas under 

 consideration deviates notably in the proportion of the head and maxillary 

 (which scarcely reaches the pupil, whereas in the other specimens it reaches the 

 middle of the eye), and that it is slightly beyond the limits of the range of the 

 other specimens in several other respects. It also deviates somewhat in color, as 

 the spots are smaller and more regularly placed, being more or less in rows, and 

 the fins, except the caudal, are unspotted. However, much variation in spotting 

 is evident among specimens examined, and may be of no significance. 



The type, and some specimens taken off the coast of North Carolina, agree 

 with the Tortugas fish in having a fairly definitely pointed caudal fin, whereas 

 the other Florida specimens have a rounded caudal. Norman (Flatfishes, vol. 1, 

 1934, p. 147, fig. 100) apparently erred in stating that the 1st ray of the dorsal is 

 longer than the succeeding ones, as in all the specimens at hand the immediately 

 succeeding ones are fully as long as the 1st. 



Because of the rather numerous differences that appear to exist among speci- 

 mens commonly identified as Citharichthys macrops, it may be found, from a 

 more comprehensive study, that more than one species is included. 



South Atlantic and Gulf coast of the United States. S. F. H. 



Etropus Jordan and Gilbert, 1881 



Parr (Bull. Bingham Oceanog. Coll., vol. 4, art. 1, 1931) united this genus 

 with Citharichthys, stating that, according to authors, Citharichthys differs from 

 Etropus "only in the very small size of -the mouth and in the correspondingly 

 weak dentition," and that his own observations showed it to be impracticable to 

 base a generic subdivision upon that feature alone. Parr then showed by measure- 

 ments that there is no clear division in the size of the mouth among the species 

 commonly assigned to these two genera, though the differences in the extremes 

 are comparatively great. Norman (Flatfishes, vol. 1, 1934), however, whose 



