152 PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM vol.84 



largely from Poey's outline drawing but with some changes as well 

 as the addition of the squamation. 



Jordan's nominal Vesposics and Gilchrist's Xenolepidichthys were 

 both differentiated from Graniniicolepis by the presence of a row 

 of strong, spiny bucklers along each side of the dorsal and anal 

 bases, on the assumption that Poey's specimen lacked such structures. 

 On reviewing the matter it is evident that both Jordan and Gilchrist 

 depended entirely on Shufeldt's paper (or on Goode and Bean's 

 partial copy of it) and that Shufeldt misinterpreted, and erroneously 

 translated, one important sentence in Poey's account. 



In the course of his description of the scales, Poey says, "La 

 primera, tanto arriba como abajo, es mas corta y lleva en la cabeza 

 dos puntes endurecidas que accompanan la base de los radios." In 

 connection with the context of the paragraph as a whole, I translate 

 this as follows: "The first [scale], both above [ = dorsally] and below 

 [ = ventrally], is shorter [than those toward the middle of the body] 

 and carries at the head [end] two strong points which accompany 

 the base of the rays." These strong points, or spines, and perhaps 

 the fins themselves, were evidently not present on the skeleton when 

 Shufeldt received it, and, being unable to understand what Poey 

 meant, he translated the sentence as, "The leading scales on the body, 

 above as well as below, are shorter and when carried on to the head, 

 are doubly as firm as those found at the base of the fin rays." Know- 

 ing that all other grammicolepids have these spines, one can easily see 

 what Poey was attempting to describe. 



Moreover, Poey's outline drawing, which did not show the raj^s 

 of the soft dorsal and anal, clearly figures the row of spines along 

 the base of both dorsal and anal. Shufeldt took these spines for in- 

 dications of the bases of the fin rays, and they do not appear in his 

 figure, in which the rays are drawn in. 



The only other point that might cause confusion is Poey's state- 

 ment that tiDo points are present. From my description above it is 

 clear that at least the anterior spine-bearing bucklers at the fin bases 

 show one or more subsidiary spines. 



It is possible that the differences in meristic characters between 

 the type of Vesposus and the smaller specimens from the Caribbean 

 may have some significance. With my present material I am unable 

 to do more than call attention to the fact. 



The figure of the type of Vespostis egregius given by Jordan and 

 by Jordan and Jordan, drawn from the dried and twisted type, is 

 incorrect in a number of details and entirely lacks the very charac- 

 teristic physiognomy of Grammicolepis^ which is apparent even in 

 the dry specimen. 



Poey's large type appears to represent the fully adult form of the 

 species. No other examples as large as his have been found. 



