600 GLEANINGS AMONG THE PLEURONECTIDS. 



rus may be hereafter used. The change necessary is thus reduced as 

 much as the circumstances of the case admit. 



Artedi, in 1738, had, it is true, referred to the GitJtarus of the ancients 

 under the quasi-generic caption Citharus, and at one time I had assumed 

 that the name might therefore be employed as the generic designation 

 of the type ; but not only is Artedi excluded as a uou-biuoinial author, 

 but it is evident that he did not really use the name as a generic desig- 

 nation, but simply quoted it as that of the species so called in ancient 

 times, because he could not refer it to any precise place in his system. 



THE GROUPS BOTHUS, PSETTA, AND LOPHOPSETTA. 



Messrs. Jordan and Goss have united the Turbot, the Brill, and their 

 American representative in a single genus, but recognize a subgenus 

 (Pleuronectes) for the first, and another {Bothus) for the last two, al- 

 though the senior author had at one time considered the « subgenera" 

 as " o-enera." They have overlooked some important characters, how- 

 ever, in the structure of the anterior dorsal rays, the extension of the 

 lateral line on the head, and the form of the supramaxillaries, which 

 might have led them to a different conclusion if they had been cogni- 

 zant of them. The three types are certainly closely related, and their 

 relative degrees of affinity have been well appreciated by Messrs. Jor- 

 dan and Goss. There may still be a difference of opinion whether they 

 should be regarded as representatives of one genus or of two genera or 

 of three genera. If, however, we apply the same criterion in ichthyology 

 as is almost universally done in ornithology, at least among the pas- 

 serine birds, the three types would properly be raised to generic rank; 

 if even we adopt all the genera recognized by Messrs. Jordan and Goss, 

 consistency would be best manifested in such recognition. Their super- 

 lieial similarity, even, is less than that between Citharichthys and Etropus 

 Jordan and Gilbert, as may be inferred from the fact that Messrs. 

 Jordan and Goss failed at first to recognize any difference between two 

 species which they subsequently referred to different genera.* 



NEW GENERA. 



The species which were associated by Bonaparte with the P. macro- 

 lepidotes ( Wucitharus linguatula), and which were afterwards segregated 

 by Bleeker and later writers in the genus Arnoglossus, may still retain 

 that name. But two of the species referred by Jordan and Goss with 

 doubt to that genus do not belong to it: these are the A. (?) fimbriates 

 and the A. (?) ventralis, known to the authors in question only from the 

 original descriptions. These I have been enabled to study and com- 

 pare with their relatives. The A. (?) fimbriates was first described by 

 Messrs. Goode and Bean under the name Eemirhombus fimbr iates, and 



ilharichthys microstoma ^as for a time referred to the genus Etropus and Etroput 

 KifWMta considered as identical with it. See Jordan and Goss'a Review, pp. o4 (*7d) 

 vs. 108(332). 



