PROCEEDINGS OF UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM. 365 

 NOTi:«9i 0>f TBIE FSSiMJS^ OF BEAUFORT IIARBOE:, NOKTIt C'AKOLBIVA. 



iSy DA\flI> S. JOKDAN Kud CI1AKI.ES 12. GILEEIIT. 



In tlie Proceedings of the Pliiladelpliia Academy of Natural Sciences 

 for 1877, P13. 203-218, is a paiJer entitled "Notes on tlie IsTatural History 

 of Fort Macon, K. C, and Vicinity (No. 3)," by Dr. H. C. Yarrow, whick 

 treats of tbe species of fishes obtained by Drs. Cones and Yarrow in 

 Beaufort Harbor and neigbboriug waters during the peiiod of tlieir 

 residence at Fort Macon. 



During the past summer (1878), the ^Miters, accompanied by Prof. A. 

 ^Y. Brayton and a partj' of students from Butler University, spent three 

 weeks in the month of August at Beaufort, the chief business of the 

 party being the collection of fishes. AVe obtained, in all, about seventy- 

 five species, many of which are not included in Dr. Yarrow's list. 



For the x)uri)ose of making as complete a showing of the Ichthyology 

 of the North Carolina coast as possible, we here include not only the 

 species which we have ourselves. observed, but also those taken by 

 Drs. Coues and Yarrow. Brief notes on the local habits or distribu- 

 tion of each species are given, as well as occasional critical remarks on 

 the nomenclature. The sequence and nomenclature are essentially as in 

 Professor Gill's Catalogue of the Fishes of the East Coast of North 

 America, 1873. The vernacular uauif s here given are onlv tliose used 

 by the Beaufort fishermen. 



Family LOPHIID^. 



Genus LOPHIUS Linn. 



1. Lophius piscatorius L. — AU-mouth. 

 {Lophius cmericaniis Gill, 1. c.) 



Not seen alive; two sets of jaw-bones picked up on the beach below 

 Cape Lookout. Said to be occasionally taken by the fishermen. Until 

 some evidence other than the difference of habitat is offered to show 

 that the American "Angler," Lophius amcricanus DeKay, is distinct from 

 the European Lophius piscatorius L., it seems to us that the burden of 

 proof is on the side of the doubtful species. It seems better to consider 

 the two forms on opposite sides of the xVtlantic as identical until proved 

 to be distinct, rather than distinct until proved to be identical. In the 

 case of this and numerous other northern fishes of mde range. Dr. Gill 

 (1. c), on the contrary, has "preferred to retain the names given to the 

 American forms as distinct species, although he is inclined to belie\'e 

 that they will eventually be foimd to be co-specific with other forms." 



