i 94 i CATALOGUE OF FISHES OF TORTUGAS 291 



metallic greenish, with brown dots, tending to run seven or eight to a row, and 

 five or six longitudinal rows on the body. The preserved specimen is silvery, the 

 dark dots remaining distinct; dorsal, anal, and pectorals colorless; caudal quite 

 dusky; dorsal spine darker than body. 



The generic position of this species has been uncertain. The definition of 

 Cantherines apparently must be revised if the present species is placed in it, be- 

 cause it has barbs on the dorsal spine. If the statement that these barbs are absent 

 is eliminated from the description of that genus, the only character left to dis- 

 tinguish it from Monacanthus is the more anterior position (over the eye, instead 

 of behind it) of the dorsal spine. 



Heretofore reported only from the West Indies. S. F. H. 



Alutera Oken 



Les Aluteres Cuvier, Regne animal, 1st ed., 1817, p. 153 (Balistes monoceros Osbeck). 



Alutera Oken, Isis, 1817, p. 1183 {Balistes monoceros Osbeck). 



Ceratacanthus Gill, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia, vol. 13, 1861, p. 57 (Batistes auran- 



tiacus = Balistes schoepfii Walbaum). 

 Osbechja Jordan and Evermann, Rept. U. S. Fish Comm., pt. 21, 1895 (1896), p. 424 



(Balistes scriptus Osbeck). 

 Davidia Miranda Ribeiro, Arch. Mus. nac. Rio de Janeiro, vol. 17, 1915 (Monacanthidae, 



p. 9) (Alutera punctata Jordan and Rutter [not of Agassiz?] = r "Balistes schoepfii 



Walbaum). 



An error by Jordan and Rutter provides the sole justification for Ribeiro's 

 genus Davidia, recognized by Jordan, Evermann, and Clark (Check list, 1930, 

 p. 495). The teeth of the Jamaican fish, which the first-mentioned authors said 

 were in a single series in each jaw, have, in fact, the same arrangement as in 

 related species. As for the other genera mentioned above, Jordan, Evermann, 

 and Clark wrote in the Chec\ list, "The distinction of Osbec\ia and Cerata- 

 canthus from Alutera is questionable." For the first two certainly the point seems 

 well taken. In a lengthy series of publications a figure of Alutera schoepfii has 

 for nearly forty years passed as A. scripta without observed comment, except 

 from Meek and Hildebrand (Field Mus. Nat. Hist., Zool. Ser., vol. 15, pt. 3, 

 1928, p. 803). 



An observation regarding Alutera centralis (see Longley and Hildebrand, 

 Carnegie Inst. Wash. Pub. 517, 1940, p. 278) necessitates a slight change of em- 

 phasis in the generic description. Not the absence of ventral fins, but their 

 absence or reduction to a vestige of microscopic size, and the extension and 

 curvature of the pelvic bone are the diagnostic features derived from these struc- 

 tures. W. H. L. 



Alutera schoepfii (Walbaum) 



Balistes schoepfii Walbaum, Artedi pise, pt. 3, 1792, p. 461 — Long Island (after Schopf). 

 Alutera (Ceratacanthus) punctata Jordan and Rutter (not of Cuvier), Proc. Acacl. Nat. 



Sci. Philadelphia, vol. 49, 1897, p. 127 — Jamaica. 

 Alutera species dubia, and Alutera punctata Poey, Repertorio, vol. 2, 1868, p. 438 — Cuba. 



Large specimens were taken occasionally in 10 to 14 fathoms within and with- 

 out the lagoon. Two swimming together came within the field of a submerged 



