KEVIEW OF HIPPOCAMPUS — GINSBURG 567 



H. marginalis and H. fascicularis, judged by the description of the 

 color, were apparently based on specimens of the present subspecies. 

 The longitudinal hues on the front part of the trunk contrasted with 

 transverse lines posteriorly, as described for marginalis, is especially 

 characteristic of punctulatus, although specimens often occur in 

 which this color pattern is obscured. Substantially the same color 

 pattern is described ior fascicularis , but the specimen for which this 

 name was proposed evidently had the alternating white lines on the 

 opercle and the lower anterior corner of the trunk very prominent, 

 which attracted Heckel's attention (see above color notes on 

 punctulatus and hudsonius). 



H. stylifer was based chiefly on the strong development of some of 

 the tubercles, assuming the form of rather long spines. The type of 

 stylifer is a small specimen, 55 mm long, without any trace of a 

 brood pouch, taken in deep water, wliich would account for the rela- 

 tively long spines, longer than usual in specimens of that size (see 

 p. 556). It has 18 dorsal rays, not 16 as stated in the original 

 description. 



H. poeyi, based on a single small *^ female, seemingly a young speci- 

 men, is apparently another name to add to the synonyms of punctu- 

 latus. The counts of the segments and fin rays given in the original 

 description distinctly fall within the range of variation of this sub- 

 species. The figure of the type shows the spines somewhat lower 

 than usual in females of punctulatus of about that size; but the 

 development of the spmes in punctulatus varies greatly with indi- 

 vidual fish, some specimens assuming the adult condition when small. 

 If the figure is correctly outlined, it may represent a young reidi, but 

 it remains to be seen whether that species occurs on the coast of Cuba, 

 and it is more likely that it is a young punctulatus. If poeyi is differ- 

 ent from either of those two, there is nothing in the original description 

 to show it. 



Howell states in regard to his type: "Este ejemplar es cercano al 

 Hippocampus punctulatus Guichenot del que difiere por las propor- 

 ciones generales, la posici6n de la dorsal y la coloracion." The posi- 

 tion of the dorsal as shown on the figure is about that usual in punctu- 

 latus, and besides there is a certain degree of variation in that respect. 

 The proportional measurements and the color vary much with individ- 

 ual fish and to a still more marked extent with age, the typical condi- 

 tion not being developed except in full-grown or nearly full-grown 

 specimens. 



<7 After becoming familiar with the variability and the age, sex, and specific differences shown by the 

 species of Hippocampus, I thinli it is worse than useless to attempt to base a new species of seahorse on a 

 single specimen, especially a juvenile, unless it shows some salient specific character; at least not until after 

 the range of variation of closely related species is determined by a study of series of specimens of like size 

 and in the same sex. This is true to a certain extent in other groups as well, but it is especially true of sea- 

 horses. An attempt to describe a new species of seahorse without at least a series of specimens of closely 

 related species for comparison cannot but result, in most cases, in a distinct disservice to the cause of science. 



