1885.] NATURAL SCIENCES OP PHILADELPHIA. 151 



47"; Collet, Norges Fiske, 1875, 17 (Christianafjord ; Lindesnaes ; 



Bergen): Bean, Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., 1879, 26 (Europe); Vinci- 



guerra, Risult. Ittiol. del Violante. 1883, 41 (Dalmazia ; Marcova, 



Melida; Curzola ; Lissa ; Lagosta and Cazza). 

 Mullus barbatus De la Roche, "Ann. Mus. xiii, 1809, 306"; Gronow, 



Cat. Fish. 1854, 108 ; Steindachner, Uebersicht Meeresfische an 



Kiisten Spaniens und Portugals, 1867, 33 (Cadiz; Lisbon; Gibraltar; 



Tenerifte); Botteri, Cat. Pisci di Lesina, 1873, 60 (Lesina). 

 Mullus barbatus surmuletus Day, Fishes of Great Brit., 1880, 22, pi. 8, 



fig. 2 (Mevagissey). 

 Mullus dubius Malm, "Ofversigt of Kongl. Vet. Akad. Forhandl., 



1852, 224" (Sweden). 



(b.) Var. auratus. 



Mullus barbatus auratus Jordan & Gilbert, Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., 

 1882, 280 (Pensacola); Jordan & Gilbert, Syn. Fish. N. A., 1882, 931 

 (Pensacola ; Wood's Holl). 



Mullus auratus Jordan Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., 1884, 39 (Pensacola). 



Habitat. — Var. surmuletus, on all southern and western coasts 

 of Europe, from Sweden to Africa ; the most common species in 

 most parts of Europe. Var. auratus, eastern coast of America, 

 Wood's Holl to Pensacola. 



This form called auratus, has been occasionally taken on our 

 Atlantic and Gulf coasts, but it is evidently rare. The single 

 specimen examined by us came from deep water at Pensacola. 

 It seems to us to be a variety of M. surmuletus rather than a 

 distinct species, and it is certainly nearer M. surmuletus than 31. 

 barbatus, as the latter is described. 



Many European writers have denied the distinctness of M. sur- 

 muletus and M. barbatus. The following account of the two, 

 translated from Vinciguerra's Risultati Ittiologici del Crociere del 

 Violante, seems to give a final answer to the question as to the 

 difference between these two species. 



" No one of the Mediterranean ichthyologists has yet been 

 willing to accept the fusion of these two forms, an opinion which 

 I regard as really incorrect, and caused by the scarcity of M. 

 barbatus in the waters of the Atlantic and Baltic. I have been 

 able to verify, on an extensive series of examples, that in 

 barbatus, as in surmuletus, there exist two forms ; the one with 

 the profile oblique, the other with the pi-ofile rectilinear. These 

 probably represent the two sexes, and those who wish to take as 



