THE SHORE FISHES OF PERU 415 



shapes; fins, exclusive of ventrals, darker than the body. The follow- 

 ing description is after Evermann and RadclifTe (see reference above): 

 "Color in life, general color light chocolate-brown, with very conspicu- 

 ous heiroglyphic-like white markings over entire body; while these 

 are somewhat irregular in form and arrangement, they are still very 

 characteristic in appearance, are evenly distributed, and tend to cer- 

 tain forms, as circles, oblongs, horseshoes, hourglasses, etc. These 

 may be entirely of a light color or with brown centers." 



This species is so similar to 6. ehilensis, except for color, that it 

 does not seem profitable to give a detailed description. Indeed, it has 

 been stated that they differ little in structure. However, when the 

 skin was cut at the bases of the dorsal and anal fins in a few specimens, 

 making the rays visible, a relatively great difference in the number of 

 rays was found, as shown by the enumerations given elsewhere. 

 Evermann and Radcliffe (see reference above) said: "A comparison 

 of the measurements of our specimens and those given by Delfin seems 

 to indicate that the head is a little longer, the average length of the 

 maxillary and diameter of the eye less and the width of the inter- 

 orbital greater in this species than in 0. blacodes" (=chilensis). My 

 measurements are in agreement with this statement only as to the 

 maxillary. According to the specimens before me the outer series of 

 teeth in the lower jaw are larger than those in the upper in ehilensis, 

 whereas these teeth are about equal in size in maculatus. Furthermore, 

 the small teeth behind the enlarged ones of the outer series are in a 

 narrow band in each jaw in ehilensis, whereas they are in a very 

 narrow band anteriorly in the upper jaw, and in one or irregularly in 

 two series in the lower jaw in maculatus. 



Four specimens, 355 to 660 mm. long, collected by R. E. Coker at 

 Guanape North Island and Mollendo were studied. Evermann and 

 Radcliffe (see reference above) referred to this species as " the common 

 congrio." No mention is made in the report of the Mission (1943, 

 p. 286), of the relative abundance of the two species recognized. The 

 largest specimen at hand, which is now 660 mm. long, somewhat 

 exceeds the maximum length of 500 mm. given in the report of the 

 Mission. The edible qualities, the preferred habitat, and method of 

 catching mentioned under 6. ehilensis presumably apply to both 

 species. 



As shown by the synonymy given above, this species was recognized 

 as G. ehilensis by Evermann and Radcliffe. However, Norman (see 

 reference above) has produced rather convincing evidence indicating 

 that it is G. maeulatus (Tschudi). 



Range. — Coasts of Peru and Chile. 



