PROCEEDINGS OF UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM. 427 



iu view of the range of specimens of Mol a be Lad, and of the differences 

 between Mola and Molacanthns, he failed to exercise his reasoning 

 powers when he determined the hitter to be the young of the former. 

 In fact, the differences between Molacantlms and Mola when yonng are 

 considerably greater than between the former and Mola when old. 



A slight attention to the logic of facts, aided by a very moderate use 

 of the reasoning faculties, might have convinced Dr. Giinther of the 

 wide differences between the forms ni question. 



" In Mr. Gill's system," so far as was expressed in his "Catalogue of 

 the Fishes of the East Coast of North America" (18G1, p. 57), the genus 

 Molacanihns was simply differentiated from Mola or Orthagoriscus as a 

 distinct subfamily; to this extent, at least, its differentiation is justified 

 by anatomical contr.ists. It is probable, however, that even family rank 

 should be awarded to it in order to adequately exi)ress its decided and 

 manifold differences, aiul to such rank I do now propose to elevate the 

 groni>. There is not much doubt that the anatomical differences already 

 known to exist will be supplemented by others when the osteology, and 

 especially skulls of the two types, are compared. 



A REVIEW OF THE SPECIES OF LUTJANINiE AND HOPLOPA- 

 GRINiE FOUND IN AMERICAN WATERS. 



By DAVID .^ii. JOKDAIV niid JOSEPH !!)\VAIIV. 



In this paper is given the synonymy of the American species of the 

 genera allied to Litfjanusj with descriptions of the species which we have 

 been able to examine, and analytical tables by which tliese species may 

 be distinguished. 



We accept the views of Dr. Gill as to the relationships of these forms, 

 placing them in the faniily of iSparidce, in which group they appe.ar to 

 constitute two subfamilies, Hoplopagrinw and Lntjanina\ We arrange 

 the American species in eight genera. Three of these [Ocyurtis, Rhom- 

 ho2)liteSj and Tropidini'us) have fornierly not been admitted by us as 

 distinct from Lntjanus, from which genus they are not indeed distin- 

 guishable by any single external character of high importance. An 

 examination of a series of skulls of West Indian species, kindly shown 

 to us by Dr. Gill, has convinced us of the desirability of recognizing each 

 of these groups as a genus separate from Lutjamis, as the secondary 

 characters of each are accompanied by well-marked peculiarities of the 

 cranium, the structure of which is very constant in species properly re- 

 ferred to Ltitjan7is. For the characters drawn from the skull in the fol- 

 lowing analysis of the genera, we are indebted to Professor Gill. The 

 skull of Hoplopagnis has never been studied, and that of two of the more 

 aberrant species of iy?f/ya««.v {inermls; arottis) should be examined before 

 their position can be considered as definitely fixed. The latter is prob- 



