PEOCEEDINGS OF UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM 265 



southward. In troi)ical America it seems to be less abundant, and in 

 Cuba it has not yet been found. In the Mediterranean it is also an 

 abundant food-fish, although probably less common than 3fugil ceur 

 (cnpito). 



Wo have carefully compared specimens of this type from Venice 

 (Mugil cephalus), from various points on the east coast of the United 

 States {Mugil albida=lineatus), from California and Mexico {Mugil mexi- 

 canus), and from Chili {Mugil rammelshergi). They agree fully in form, 

 color, fin-rays, squamation, dentition, and we find ourselves entirely 

 unable to point out any distinctive characters among them at all likely to 

 be permanent. We therefore regard them as a single species. Varietal 

 names could be given to sijecimens from these different localities by any 

 oue so disposed, but at present we know of no characters to mark such 

 varieties. 



As to the synonymy a few words may be necessary. 



The name cephalus was based on a long description by Artedi of some 

 mullet, the habitat not stated. This description contains nothing dis- 

 tinctive ; but, on the whole, it seems to point to the present species, which 

 was the cephalus of the Eomans, and is still the Cefalo of the Italians. 

 Valenciennes, however, thinks that Artedi's fish was probably t\ie, Mugil 

 <eur {capito), because of this expression: ^^oculi nulla cute communi 

 tecti,''^ " an expression which he would certainly not have employed if he 

 had examined the eyes of a true cephalus.'''' 



But this seems to me not so sure. Even in the species with the adi- 

 pose eyelid, the eye is not covered by the common skin of the head, the 

 pupil being naked. 



The Mugil cephalus of Cuv. & Val., and of all later writers is the pres- 

 ent species. 



The Mugil alhula, which first appears in the twelfth edition of the 

 Systema Naturae, is based on a fish sent from Charleston, by Dr. Garden. 

 This specimen has been examined by Messrs. Goode and Bean, and 

 identified with the present species. 



The names plumieri and lineatus undoubtedly belong to this species, 

 as also that of berlandieri. 



Mugil rammelshergi is the representative of this form on the Pacific 

 coast of South America. It is regarded as different by Giiuther and 

 Steindachner, but our specimens show no tangible distinctive charac- 

 ters. 



The description of Mugil giintheri does not fully agree with 71/. cephalus. 

 The discrepancies are probably due to the small size or poor condition 

 of the original type, which is now lost. 



Mugil mexicanus does not appear to differ at all from the Atlantic 

 form. The original type had seven soft rays in the anal, but the normal 

 number in the California mullet is right. Lockington and Steindachner 

 have since identified this species with Mugil cephalotus, C. & V., from 

 Southern Asia. There is nothing in the descriptions of the latter spe- 



