44 PROCEEDINGS OF UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM. 



ing Poey's campeachianus that was then available, aud no one has, since 

 that time, added anything but conjecture upon the relation of the Gulf 

 form to the original of Poey's description. Indeed it is by no means cer- 

 tain that the type of that description is in existence. There is some 

 ground for the belief that the specimen now purporting to be the basis 

 of Poey's account is a later, erroneous identification of the Ked Snapi)er. 

 Any one who will compare our measurements of Ltitjauus hlacl<J'ordu on 

 page 179 of Vol. I aud 138 of Vol. II of the Proceedings above referred 

 to with the description of L. campeachianus will observe the important 

 discrepancies between our fish and that ot Poey. 



It will be found that the eye of L. campeachianus is very much larger, 

 and that the scales above the lateral line are much more numerous than 

 in L. hlacl-fordii. We are not concerned with Poey's recent interpreta- 

 tion of the lied Snapper, and we do not consider that this should be al- 

 lowed to enter into the the discussion. In Lutjanus blacl:fordii we have a 

 species fully described and accurately figured. It is quite as impossible 

 to reconcile our species with the description of L. campeachianus now as 

 it was six years ago, and we cannot see the supposed necessity of uniting 

 the two on the basis of our present knowledge. 



3. Caulolatilus microps Goode & Bean. 



The following notes were obtained from an example of G. chrysops in 

 the British Museum: 



The length of the longest gill-raker is 4^ millimeters. The opercular 

 spine is short, but sharp. The preoperculum is finely denticulated on its 

 posterior margin. The black axillary spot is not quite so long as the pupil. 

 The twenty-first ray of the dorsal is somewhat produced, as well as the 

 twentieth anal ray ; and these rays are only once divided and not twice, 

 like all the others. If the scales be counted obliquely upward and for- 

 ward from the anal origin to the lateral line, we shall find 31 or 32 rows ; 

 if counted upward and backward, 28. 



The most important differences between G. microps and G. chrysops 

 will be observed in (1) the length of the snout, (2) the length of the 

 dorsal spines and rays, (3) the length of the longest anal rays, (4) the 

 length of the paired fins, and (5) the number of scales in the lateral line. 

 We cannot attribute these discrepancies to a difference in age, and we 

 believe that nothing is to be gained *by attempting to estimate the rela- 

 tions of the species by an examination of the literature alone. It will be 

 best to consider microps as an established species until its claim to dis- 

 tinctness can be more successfully controverted. 



An examination of the table of measurements which follows will show 

 the relations of the West Indiau and Gulf forms under discussion. We 

 believe that three clearly marked species are indicated. 



