PROCEEDINGS OF UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM. i')85 



unable to appreciate any coiistant differences in proportions of head 

 and fins, or in tlie serration of tlie scales. The length of the head in our 

 specimens is about one-third length of body, sometimes a litflr more, 

 sometimes less, and without reference to locality. 



21. Dorosoma cepedianuin (Le SiuMir) Gill. — Gizzard-shad. 



Comparison with specimens from White River, Indiana, and from 

 Charleston, where the species is abundant, fails to show any difference 

 between them. Examines from Galveston, however, as has been al- 

 ready noted (Proc. IT. S. Xat. Mus., 1882, 248), differ conspicnonsly in 

 api)earauce from the ordinary type because of much slenderer body^ 

 the depth being 2| in length (instead of 2i); in the Galveston form the 

 caudal peduncle is notably longer and slenderer, and the head slen- 

 derer. This Galvest<m form seems to us worthy of being distinguished 

 as a subspecies, and may be called Borosoma cepedianiim siibsp. e.cUe. 



22. Stolephorus mitchilli (C. «& V.) J. & G. 

 (Jor. & Gilb. Proc. U. S. Nat. Miis., 1S&2, 248.) 



Very common in Charleston Harbor, and agreeing perfectly with spec- 

 imens from Wood's Holl, Galveston and Pensacola. Head, 3| : depth,. 

 3f; D. 14; A. 27. 



23. Stolephorus browni (Ginel.) J. & G. 

 Several specimens in Charleston Museum. 



24. Synodus fcetens (Liuu.) Gill. — Providence Whiting. 



Common in the harbor and on the Black-fish banks. Cautiously- 

 handled by the fishermen because of its supposed poisonous proper- 

 ties. 



25. Fundulus majalis (Walb.) GUntber. 



Several specimens in the Charleston Museum, collected on the South 

 Carolina coast. 



26. Fundulus similis (Girard) Jordan. 



Many young specimens caught in tide-pools in the harbor. 



27. Fundulus heteroolitus (Linn.) Giinther.— Mwrf^fls/i. 



Many specimens from Charleston enable us to make a more detailed 

 comparison with specimens from the Gulf, and to demonstrate the per-^ 

 manence of the characters separating the two forms. Of these the east- 

 coast form (typical heteroclitus) has all the fins conspicuously larger,- 

 and the wiiite spots on vertical fins, in the male, smaller and more nu- 

 merous. Other details of form and coloration are the same in both, and 

 it will probably be better to consider the Gulf form as a subspecies. 



In adult male heteroclitus the longest dorsal ray is contained If times- 



