290 PAPERS FROM TORTUGAS LABORATORY vol. xxxiv 



spine slender and barhless, though rough on anterior margin, situated over 

 anterior two-thirds of eye, 1.25. D. I-34; A. 31; caudal peduncle with a large 

 area with enlarged scales, bearing spines of nearly uniform size; ventral flap not 

 extending beyond spine; caudal short and round. 



The preserved specimen retains no trace of the lateral stripes described in 

 fresh material, nor of the other light markings mentioned. It is dark brown in 

 color, and the sides of the snout are marked with several light lines. 



Atlantic coast of tropical America, also in the West Indies and northward to 

 Florida. S. F. H. 



Cantherines amphioxys (Cope) 



Dr. Longley listed in his notes a single specimen, 51 mm. in length, taken 

 south of Tortugas in 35 to 40 fathoms, which on comparison with Cope's type 

 he identified as this species. Later he seems to have questioned whether C. 

 amphioxys actually was a "good species," or the young of C. pullus. He appar- 

 ently failed to acquire sufficient material to settle the question. The fin-ray 

 counts, in the only specimen taken and in the one definitely identified as C. 

 pullus, indeed agree. The dorsal spine, however, though agreeing approximately 

 in position in the two, bears distinct barbs in the small specimen, which are 

 missing in C. pullus, and there is a rather distinct 2d spine, extending well into 

 the membrane. Furthermore, the small specimen has no enlarged scales with 

 spines at base of caudal, whereas C. pullus has a large area of enlarged scales with 

 spines, though none are outstandingly enlarged. In the related species Mona- 

 canthus hispid us and M. ciliatus, of which large series, ranging from young to 

 adult, are at hand, no variation has been noticed in this respect. That is, in 

 M. hispidus all the scales on the caudal peduncle are of nearly uniform size in 

 the young as well as in adults, whereas in M. ciliatus some of the scales are 

 enlarged at all ages, though the spines they bear are very variable in size. It 

 seems improbable, therefore, that the difference in scales and spines on the 

 caudal peduncle in the specimens of Cantherines at hand is due to a difference 

 in age. The barbs on the dorsal spines in the related species named are propor- 

 tionately larger in the young than in adults, but they are not lost with age. The 

 silvery color of the specimen in hand also contrasts quite strongly with the dark 

 brown color of C. pullus. It is the writer's opinion, therefore, that C. amphioxys 

 very probably is a valid species. 1 



The following proportions and enumerations are based on the specimen at 

 hand, which agrees in size, number of fin rays, and color with the specimen 

 described by Dr. Longley in his notes, though no identification or locality label 

 was found with it. Head, measured to upper angle of gill slit, 2.5; depth at origin 

 of second dorsal 2.3; snout to base of dorsal spine 2.75. Eye in head 3.75; snout 

 1.3; interorbital 3.75; caudal peduncle 3.6; pectoral 2.9. D. II-34; A. 30. 



The color of the fresh specimen, as described by Dr. Longley in his notes, was 



1 At the time the foregoing was written, I had overlooked a table of synonyms published 

 by Dr. Longley (Carnegie Inst. Wash. Year Book No. 32, 1933, p. 294), wherein he assigned 

 C. amphioxys to the synonymy of C. pullus. How he arrived at this conclusion is not stated. 



