Fishes of the Western North Atlantic 415 



Trygon micriira Miiller, Faunus, Z. Zool., Vergl. Anat., herausg. Gistel, N. S. j, 1837: 40 (Rio de Janeiro, 

 ident. probable because said to agree with descr. o^ Raja micrura by Bloch and Schneider 1801). 



Pterop/atea maclura Miiller and Henle, Plagiost., 1841 : 169 (descr., meas., size, Brazil, Surinam [Dutch Guiana], 

 New York); Dumeril, Hist. Nat. Poiss., J, 1865: 614 (descr., Brazil, New York, same specimen as in 

 Miiller and Henle, 1841, but max. size probably erroneous; see discussion, p. 412, fn. 64); Giinther, Cat. 

 Fish. Brit. Mus., 8, 1870: 487 (descr., Brazil, Texas specimens); Jordan and Gilbert, Bull. U. S. nat. 

 Mus., 16, 1883 : 46 (descr., Virginia to Brazil); Jordan and Evermann, Bull. U. S. nat. Mus., .^7 (i), 1896: 

 86 (descr., color. Long Island, New York to Brazil); Rep. U. S. Comm. Fish. (1895), 1896: 224 (listed, 

 Rhode Island to Brazil); Linton, Bull. U.S. Bur. Fish., 24, 1905: 348 (stom. contents, Beaufort, N. 

 Carolina); Smith, N. C. geol. econ. Surv., 2, 1907: 45 (descr., nos., size of gravid females and newborn, 

 no. of young, N. Carolina, but max. size given is probably not for this species); Wilson, Proc. U. S. nat. 

 Mus., jj, igo8: 626 (copepod parasites, Beaufort, N.Carolina); Gudger, Amer. Nat., 4^, 1910: 401 

 (uterine gestation); Weymouth, Proc. U. S. nat. Mus., J<S, 1910: 135 (no. dark tail bands, size, Cameron, 

 Louisiana); Gudger, Science, N. S. JJ, 1911: 943 (tail of embryo); Proc. biol. Soc. Wash., 25, 1912: 

 148 (uterine wall, eggs, embryos, no. young, claspers, absence of tail spine, size of gravid females, Beau- 

 fort, N.Carolina); Fowler, Copeia, 2, 1913: 3 (listed. Ocean City, Maryland); Gudger, Proc. biol. 

 Soc. Wash., 26, 1913: 100 (size of gravid females, ovaries and eggs, Beaufort, N. Carolina); Coles, Proc. 

 biol. Soc. Wash., 28, 191 5: 94 (nos., size, C. Lookout, N. Carolina); Mast, Bull. U. S. Bur. Fish., 24i 

 1916: 181 (color adapt, to background); Coker, Copeia, no, 1922: 65 (without tail spine); Breder, 

 Copeia, 153, 1926: 122 (size, eggs, Sandy Hook Bay, New Jersey); Nichols and Breder, Zoologica N. Y., 

 9, 1927: 27 (size, food, Sandy Hook Bay and Woods Hole); Gudger, Copeia, 1933: 186 (one without 

 tail, Beaufort, N.Carolina); Breder and Nigrelli, Copeia, 1934: 193 (listed, Sandy Hook Bay); Puyo, 

 Bull. Soc. Hist. nat. Toulouse, JO, 1936: 79, 250 (cf. Pacific species, descr., color, nos., habits, util., 

 French Guiana); Breder, Bull. N. Y. zool. Soc, 41, 1938: 28 (listed, New York Harbor). 



Pteroplatea maclura (in part) Jordan, Rep. U.S. Comm. Fish. (1885), 1887: 799 {G. altavela also included 

 by ref. to G. maclura [Lesueur] 1817). 



Pteroplatea micrura Engelhardt, Abh. bayer. Akad. Wiss., Suppl. 4 (3), 191 3: 103 (range); Garman, Mem. 

 Harv. Mus. comp. Zool., j6, 1913: 414, pi. 33, figs. 3, 4 (descr., ill.); Ehrenbaum, Fischerbote, 1914: 

 407 (listed, Cameroon; not seen); Kustenfische Westafrika, 191 5: 73 (not seen); RadclifFe, Bull. U.S. 

 Bur. Fish., 24i 1916: 276, pi. 47, figs, i, 2 (ill. teeth, photos adult, embryo, size of gravid female, uterine 

 wall, nourishment of embryo, eggs, absence of tail spine, nos., Beaufort, N. Carolina); Metzelaar, Trop. 

 Atlant. Visschen, 19 19: 8, 199 (listed, Trinidad, perhaps Curasao); Fowler, Proc. biol. Soc. Wash., 

 23, 1920: 146 (listed, C. May County, New Jersey); Meek and Hildebrand, Field Mus. Publ. Zool., 

 J5 (i), 1923: 87 (descr., color, no Panama record); Monod, Faune Colon. Frang., 1927: 650 (W. Africa; 

 not seen); Hildebrand and Schroeder, Bull. U. S. Bur. Fish., 42, 1928: 67, fig. 37 (descr., color, size, 

 photo, nos., season, util., Chesapeake Bay); Breder, Field Bk. Mar. Fish. Atlant. Coast, 1929: 36 (size, 

 iU.); Jordan, Manual Vert. Anim. NE U. S., 1929: 18 (diagn., absence of tail spine); Jordan, Evermann 

 and Clark, Rep. U. S. Comm. Fish. (1928), 2, 1930: 29 (listed, Rhode Island to Brazil); Breder, Copeia, 

 1 931: 39 (listed, Sandy Hook Bay, New Jersey); Fowler, Copeia, 1931: 46 (listed. Port Aransas, near 

 Corpus Christi, Texas); Beltran, List. Feces Mexicanos, 1934: 10 (listed, Mexico; not seen); Chamber- 

 lain, Copeia, 1934: 42 (mutilation by fishermen, S. Carolina); Ranzi, Pubbl. Staz. zool. Napoli, JJ (3), 

 1934: 407 (uterine wall and secretion); Gunter, Copeia, 1935: 39 (listed, Barataria Bay, Louisiana, 

 and Gulf of Mexico); Fowler, Bull. Amer. Mus. nat. Hist., yo (l), 1936: 132 (\V. Afr. refs., descr. of 

 mid-Atlant. U. S. specimen); Gunter, Amer. Midi. Nat., 26, 1941: 196 (listed, Louisiana); Publ. Inst, 

 mar. Sci. Texas, j, 1945: 23 (temp., sal., nos., off Aransas Pass, Texas, and Barataria Bay, Louisiana); 

 Hildebrand, Bull. U.S. nat. Mus., 189, 1946: 73-74 (cf G.afuerae [Hildebrand] 1946, Peru). 



elusive evidence that their R. micrura was based on the Ray here considered rather than on its larger relative Gym- 

 nura alta'vela (Linnaeus) 1758, for at least the tail of young specimens of the latter is also cross-barred with dark 

 and light (p. 403). We think, however, that Garman (Mem. Harv. Mus. comp. Zool., 36, 1913: 414) was justified 

 in employing the name micrura for the Lesser Butterfly Ray of the western Atlantic, for the latter is known to occur 

 commonly along the northern shores of South America (French Guiana), where G. alta'vela has not been reported. 

 On the other hand, Fowler (Bull. U. S. nat. Mus., 100 [rj], 1941 : 455) has recently characterized the type locality 

 (Surinam, Dutch Guiana) given by Bloch and Schneider for their R. micrura as "likely erroneous" and has there- 

 fore followed Cantor (J. Asiat. Soc. Beng., 18, 1849: 1409) and others in applying the specific name micrura to 

 an Indo-Pacific Butterfly Ray, discussed on p. 411. 



