222 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OP [1884. 



aa. Anal fin about f length of dorsal, its insertion behind that of 

 dorsal, its rays 11 or 12; sides without distinct silvery 

 band ; last ray of dorsal produced in a short filament. 



d. Scales comparatively large, about 53 in lateral line ; 

 upper lobe of caudal bright orange in life. D. 14 ; 

 A. 12. pleii. 4. 



dd. Scales comparatively small, about 63 in lateral line 

 ( Valenciennes) ; upper lobe of caudal dirty violet 

 (Poey); D. 11-14; A. 11-12 (Poey). balao. 5- 



1. Hemirhamphus unifasciatus. 



Hemirhamphus unifasciatus Raiizani, Nov. Comm. Acad. Sci. Inst., 



Bonon, v, 1842, 3.6, Taf. 25 (Brazil) ; Giinther, Cat. Fish. Brit. 



Mus., vi, 1866, 262 (in'part ; West Indies ; Rio Janeiro) ; Cope, Tians. 



Amer. Phil. Soc, 1871, 481 (St. Martin's) ; Jo: dan & Gilbert, Proc. 



U. S. Nat. Mus., 1882, 924 (Panama; no description). (Not H. 



unifasciatus of most American writers.) 

 f HcmirhampJms picarti Cuv. & Val., Hist. Nat. Poiss., xix, 1846, 25 



(Africa). 



HemirliamjiJius richardi Cuvier & Valenciennes, Hist. Nat. Poiss., xix, 



1846, 26 (Antilles ; Cayenne ; Bahia ; Rio Janeiro). 

 HyporhampTius tricuspidatus Gill, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila., 1859, 



131 (Barbadoes). 



Hemirhamphus fasciatus Poey, Memorias, ii, 1860, 299 (Cuba ; not of 

 Bleeker). 



Hemirhamphus poeyi Gimiher, Cat. Fish. Brit. Mus., vi, 1866, 262 (on 

 H.fasciotus Foey) ; Poey, Syn. Pise. Cub., 1868, f.83 (Cuba) ; Poey, 

 Enumeration Pise. Cub., 1875, 121 (Cuba) ; Jordan & Gilbert, Proc. 

 U. S. Nat. Mus., 1882, 273, 381 (Panama). 



Habitat. — Both coasts of tropical America and West Indies ; 

 Panama ; Cuba ; West Indies ; Antilles ; St. Martin's ; Rio Janeiro ; 

 Cayenne ; Bahia. 



This species is known to us from many specimens collected by 

 Professor Jordan at Havana and Key West. Young examples 

 are more slender than the old ones, and have the lower jaw pro- 

 portionately shorter. Both young and old are, however, more 

 robust, shorter and thicker in every part than specimens of II. 

 roberti of the same size. Except this diiierence of form, we are 

 unable to detect any distinction whatever. We have no doubt, 

 however, that the two are reallv different. 



