PROCEEDINGS OF UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM. 401 



Vol. Vli, ]\o. 3«. W ashing tofii, II. €. Sept. 1 8, 1 884. 



The figure in Sloane's Jamaica we have not seen. From Mr. Goodes' 

 remarks we infer that it might be identified with U. apua. 



Willonghby has (according to Poey in lit.) copied the description of 

 Marcgrave, adding to it in the appendix a figure of a fish seven to eight 

 inches long which he conceives to be Marcgrave's species. This figure, 

 according to Poey, probably rej^resents Upinephelus cruentatiis. It is 

 certainly not the original Ctigiipuyuacu intended. Eay's work is not 

 accessible to us, but his descrii)tion is probably a copy of that given by 

 Willonghby. 



Catesby's figure of " the Hind " was supposed by its author to repre- 

 sent the Ciigupugnacu of Marcgrave, with which he erroneously identi- 

 fies the Bermuda Hind. Goode observes (Bull. U. S. Nat. Mus., 1876, 

 V, 59), "the figure of Catesby agrees precisely with the Bermuda 

 Hind [E. apua of this paper] except in the small matter of the num- 

 ber of the dorsal spines, a matter of detail not likely to have been, 

 noticed by Catesby, judging from his other figures." Of the correct- 

 ness of this identification of Catesby's figure there can be no doubt. 

 Finally, we may observe that a skin of E. apua is now (according to 

 Dr. Bean) in the possession of the Linntean Society of London ; a speci- 

 men belonging to Linnteus's own collection, and labeled by him Perca 

 guttata. This specimen is, however, not referred to in the Systema 

 Naturae, and cannot therefore be properly taken in evidence as tha 

 original type of the species. 



Five courses are therefore possible as to the Linnaean name guttatus^ 

 in the genus Epinephelun. 



1. To consider Gugupuguacu of Marcgrave the type, and to regard 

 Marcgrave's fish as unidentifiable, thus suppressing the name guttatus. 



2. To regard Gugupuguacu of Marcgrave the type, and to identify 

 this with Lichstentein's itaiara, thus using the name guttatus instead of 

 itaiara. 



3. To consider that the use of the name Perca guttata by Bloch for a 

 single species, restricted in some sense the complex Linnaean name to 

 Willoughby's figure, w^hich is supposed to represent the species figured 

 by Bloch. This view would substitute guttatus for cruentatus, and is 

 the view adopted by Poey. 



4. To regard the Linnaean specimen as fixing the type of Perca guttata 

 to the species figured by Catesby, with which this specimen is thought 

 to be identical. This would substitute guttatus for apua. 



5. To consider the Linnaean guttata a melange of unrelated and par- 

 tially unidentified species which should be altogether ignored. 



It is certain, as Poey has observed {in lit.), that although Linnaeus 

 probably intended the name '■'•guttata''^ for Marcgrave's fish, he did 

 not fix his attention on the original "ingens piscis" of Marcgrave, 

 Proc. Nat. Mus. 84 26 



