PROCEEDINGS OF UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM. 379 



The differences in the form of the head have led Gill and Poey also 

 to make it the type of a generic division, which they have named Pro- 

 microps. The species should undoubtedly be considered as forming a 

 distinct group, for which the name Fromicrops must be retained. 



This fish is known in Florida and in the West Indies as Jew-fish to 

 English-speaking fishermen, and as Guasa to those that speak Spanish. 



III.— Genus EPINEPHELUS. 



Epinephelus, Bloch, Idithyologia, 1793 (ruber, afvr, «fec.). 

 Cephalopholis, Bloch & Sclineifler, Syst. Iclithyol., 1801, 311 {argua). 

 Cyxiciithys, Swainson, Nat. Hist. Classn. Fishes, ii, 1839, 201 (flavo-purpuratus). 

 Cromileptes, Swainson, Nat. Hist. Classn. Fishes, ii, 1839, 201 {gigaa, &c.). 

 Cerna, Bonaparte, Introdnzione Iconogr. Fauna Italica, 1841 (giyas). 

 Hyporthodus, Gill, Proc. Ac. Nat. Sci. Phila., 1861, 237 {flavicanda^niveatus). 

 SCHISTORUS, Gill, Proc. Ac. Nat. Sci. Phila., 1862, 237 (mystacinun). 

 Labroperca, Gill, Proc. Ac. Nat. Sci. Phila., 1863, 80 (labriformis). 

 Merus, Poey, Ann. Lye. Nat. Hist. N. Y., about 1869 (gigas, &c.). 

 Priacanthichthys, Day, Proc. Zool. Soc. London, 1868 (young). 

 Cerxa, Doderlein, Rivista delle Specie del genere Epinephelus o Cerna, 1873 (gigas). 

 Serranus sp., auct. (nee typus). 



This group is richer in species and more widely distributed over the 

 earth than any of the others. It is also undoubtedly more diverse in 

 its composition. We do not, however, think that any further subdi- 

 vision among the American species is desirable. The species most 

 aberrant are E. morio, with lunate caudal and emarginate dorsal; E. 

 mystacinus, with plectroid armature to the preopercle and other pecu- 

 liarities, and U. analogus, with ten dorsal spines only. E. niveatus and 

 E, mystacinus also differ from most of the others in having an increased 

 number of pyloric cceca. Possibly the latter species should be placed 

 in or near Alphestes, but it more resembles Epmephelus. 



ANALYSIS OF SPECIES OF EPINEPHELUS. 



a. Dorsal spines eleven. 



i. Second dorsal spine higher than third or fourth. 



c. Caudal fin rounded ; interorbital area unusually broad ; preopercle with a stout 



tooth below its angle; second anal spine much shorter than 



third ; scales small (about 115) ; color dusky, without distinct 



markings anywhere in the adult; size very large, approaching 



that of Promicrops NiGRiTUS, 14. 



cc. Caudal fin lunate ; preoj)ercular angle little salient, without enlarged teeth ; 

 color brown, clouded with whitish ; lower parts flushed with 

 orange-red ; small dark spots about eye ; vertical fins broadly 



edged with blue-black MoRio, 15. 



bh. Second dorsal spine lower than third and fourth ; caudal fin rounded. 



d. Preopercle with two or three small teeth curved forward below its angle ; 

 scales mostly ctenoid ; head large ; pyloric cceca in increased 

 number (iSclmtorus) ; second and third anal spines about equal 

 in length : color brownish, with about eight darker cross 

 bands ; dark bands radiating from eye ; a dark moustache 

 above the maxillary ; a dark blotch on back of tail. 



Mystacinus, 16. 

 dd. Preopercle without distinct antrorse plectroid armature. 



e. Body not covered with round red or orange .spots ; spots, if any, whitish 

 or bluish. 



