THE SHORE FISHES OF PERU 85 



However, that species is described as having nearly smooth scales, 

 which is in general agreement with specimens from Lota, Chile, and 

 in disagreement with Peruvian ones which have strongly denticulate 

 scales. 



There are now before me 25 specimens, ranging from about 85 to 

 145 mm. in total length (caudal fins damaged), 70 to 113 mm. to base 

 of caudal, of the genus Ethinidium from Lota, Chile, collected by the 

 Albatross (U.S.N.M. No. 77385). These have been compared with 

 others of similar size and larger ones from Peru. There can be little 

 doubt that the material from the two countries is specifically distinct, 

 as the head in specimens from Chile is shorter (3.25 to 3.4) ; the depth 

 is greater (2.75 to 2.9); the caudal peduncle is deeper (2.8 to 2.95 in 

 head); the pectoral is shorter, failing to reach base of ventral by 

 diameter of eye, only by diameter of pupil in Peruvian specimens of 

 similar size (5.4 to 5.9 in length) ; and the ventral outline is much more 

 strongly convex. 



Peruvian material also has been identified with Clupea notacanthoides 

 Steindachner (1869b, p. 20), from Mazatlan, Mexico, known to me 

 only from the original description with figure. So far as may be 

 judged from these, the Peruvian specimens at least are closely related 

 to that species, which undoubtedly belongs to Ethmidium as herein 

 understood. The Mazatldn fish apparently differs in having a smaller 

 eye (6.33 in head), a longer snout (4.75 in head), broader interorbital 

 (4.0 in head), lower dorsal (longest rays 2.25 in head), and probably 

 a little shorter anal (14 rays). Dorsal scutes are given as 7, which 

 may be a misprint for 27, and the pectoral is said to be contained 

 2.75 times in head, which according to the figure should have been 

 stated as 1.75. The mandible is described as being bent upward, 

 hooklike, at the tip. In Peruvian specimens it is nearly straight. 

 The ventrals are said to be inserted exactly equidistant from tip of 

 snout and base of caudal, whereas in Peruvian specimens they are 

 midway between the anterior margin of the eye and base of caudal. 

 It is also to be noted that only one row of dark spots, corresponding to 

 the second row in Peruvian fishes, is described and figured in the 

 Mexican fish. It seems correct, therefore, to assume that the 

 Peruvian and Mexican fish too are different. The Peruvian specimens 

 studied, therefore, seem to be without a name. 



It is interesting that E. notacanthoides (Steindachner) apparently 

 has not been taken by collectors since it was described, when only one 

 specimen was available. No mention of this species is made in such 

 general works as Jordan's "Fishes of Sinaloa" (1895) and Jordan, 

 Evermann, and Clark's "Check List" (1930). 



Range. — Coast of Peru; Chincha Island, Callao, and Pisco Bay. 



624264—45 7 



