1880.] NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA. 1'.) 



than one-third of the semicireumference of the body. Longest 

 (9th) dorsal spine, 2f in the length of the head. 



Forehead and occiput transversely much less arcuate than in 

 the adult, the large deposit of fat on these parts in the latter being 

 absent in the young. 



Opening of moutli slightly less oblique tlian in the adult, the 

 maxillary extending a little farther back. Teeth much as in the 

 adult, but the hindmost tooth in each jaw, but especially in the 

 upper, assuming more distinctl}' the proportions of a canine, 

 though still smaller than the front teeth. 



Denticulations of operculum proportionate!}' more conspicuous, 

 and more acute than in the adult, opercular spine ending in three 

 denticulations. 



Ninth dorsal spine, 6j times in the length of the fin, about 2i 

 in the greatest depth. Rays of soft dorsal about 2^^ in the great- 

 est depth, the antepenultimate ra}^ slightly produced. Anal spines 

 closel}' attached to the first ray, ver}' small, flexible, and scarcely 

 recognizable as spines. 



A black spot above the upper axil of tlie pectoral ; upper parts 

 without the warm tint of the adult. No large development of 

 adipose tissue. 



Since the above paper was written, a third specimen of Caulola- 

 tilus from the same localit}' has come into the possession of the 

 California Academy of Sciences. This example is about equal in 

 length to the larger of the two described, bnt the development of 

 fat upon the occiput is much less marked, so that its proportions 

 are very nearly those of the type of C. anomalus. 



Although I am perfectly aware that specimens from the Gala- 

 pagos would be required to settle the question of the identity of 

 G. princeps with C. anomalus and C. affinis, I believe that the 

 comparison of these three examples, evidently all of one species, 

 and sharing among them characters relied upon as specific, cer- 

 tainly throws great doubt upon the distinctness of the three de- 

 scribed species. Dr. Bean {in lit.) doubts the specific identity of 

 the two specimens described in this paper, and draws attention to 

 certain differences of proportion, but the only differences of mag- 

 nitude are those caused by the development of fat on the occiput. 



