i 94 i CATALOGUE OF FISHES OF TORTUGAS 263 



of several, but probably not always separable in individual cases. With closer 

 acquaintance it may be given specific rating, though it scarcely seems to merit it. 



W. H. L. 



Auchenopterus fasaatus was recorded from Tortugas by Jordan and Thomp- 

 son (Bull. U. S. Bur. Fish., vol. 24, 1904 (1905), p. 254), but Dr. Longley con- 

 cluded that their identification was wrong and that they had A. nigripmms. 



Known from Venezuela, Panama, the West Indies, and Florida. S. F. H. 



Auchenopterus monophthalmus Giinther 



Auchenopterus monophthalmus Giinther, Cat. fish. Brit. Mus., vol. 3, 1861, p. 275 — 



Panama. 



Cremnobates affinis Steindachner, Ichthyol. Beitr., No. 5, 1876, p. 178— St. Thomas, West 



Indies (or Panama?). 



Not found at Tortugas. 



There has been difference of opinion regarding the identity of Auchenopterus 

 affinis (Steindachner). By most authors the name has been applied to a species 

 in which the last dorsal fin support is articulated. As Meek and Hildebrand 

 (Field Mus. Nat. Hist., Zool. Ser., vol. 15, pt. 3, 1928, p. 930) interpret the original 

 description, however, it refers to one in which the dorsal fin is supported by 

 spines only. 



Regarding what these authors call Auchenopterus affinis, they write: "Our 

 specimens seem to differ somewhat from published descriptions in having a 

 slightly shorter dorsal fin, the formula given in current descriptions being III- 

 XXVILi; the original description gives III-XXVIII, stating specifically that the 

 last spine (not ray) is attached to the base of the caudal by a membrane. Later 

 authors state that the dorsal has one soft ray, which is not true of our specimens, 

 and evidently not of the type." 



It is not strictly correct, however, to say that Steindachner in his original 

 description of Cremnobates affinis (see reference above) has given its dorsal fin 

 formula as stated in this quotation. He actually wrote "D. 3/28," as he wrote for 

 C. marmoratus "D. 3/27," although in that species, as is well known, the last 

 dorsal ray is soft and articulated. Yet it at first seems certain that he is correctly 

 interpreted above, for his text runs: "Der zweite Dorsale reicht nach hinten bis 

 in die nachste Nahe der Caudale und die Membrane ihres letzten Stachels ver- 

 bindet sich mit der Basis des oberen Caudalstrahles." As one reads on, however, 

 it becomes evident that there was some looseness in the use of the terms Stachel 

 and Strahl. It is clear, then, that one is not compelled to believe that the dorsal 

 fin supports of Cremnobates affinis are spines only. Furthermore, there is in 

 Vienna a specimen of Auchenopterus, the only one of 5 in the Museum of 

 Natural History which does not have a type label. It bears the same accession 

 number (1874.I) as the types of Cremnobates marmoratus, C. fasciatus, Clinus 

 bimaculatus, and C. ocellatus, all described for the first time in the same paper 

 with Cremnobates affinis. It carries still the notation "St. Thomas (an Panama)." 

 The fact that it is marked merely "Cremnobates" is consistent with the sugges- 



