14 BULLETIN 214, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM 



Dr. J. L. B. Smith (Rhodes Univ. Ichthy. Bull. No. 1, pp. 1-23, 

 pis. 41-45, January 1956) has published a paper, "The parrot fishes 

 of the family Callyodontidae of the Western Indian Ocean," in which 

 he discusses the many problems involved in the study of parrot 

 fishes. Dr. Smith states (pp. 1-3). "The majority of the species have 

 virtually the same body shape, the same number and arrangement 

 of scales, and the same number of rays in most fins. There are certain 

 characters such as the number of predorsal scales, the number and 

 nature of scale rows below the eye and the form and color of the 

 teeth, which show variation in combination between species, and 

 some but not all of these are reasonably constant within one species. 

 Parrot fishes have two well developed sets of gill rakers on the outer 

 arch, the normal outer and a similar inner series. In most species 

 these are numerous, small and close-set, and counts of these gill rakers 

 are not diagnostic, for in some at least the number of gill rakers 

 increases with the age of the fish. In some cases, however, the rakers 

 are larger and fewer, immediately distinctive and here regarded as 

 of generic significance." 



I agree with this statement as well as with the following: "All in 

 aU, these fishes in general present one of the most formidable problems 

 for the systematist. Even intensive close study of both living and 

 fresh material does not always make it clear what constitutes a valid 

 species. The purely museum worker with only preserved material 

 can scarcely hope to achieve very much. 



"There is probably not a single work based on preserved material of 

 the Parrot fishes whose list of synonymy is worth any great considera- 

 tion. It is ludicrous to expend time and effort in attempting to deduce 

 what species earlier workers reaUy had, and to attempt to fit material 

 into their utterly inadequate definitions .... 



. . . "In attempting to fit numbers of Parrot fishes into existing 

 species it became clear that adequate and accurate definition and 

 portrayal of our material would be of far greater value than any 

 names. In consequence every effort was made to prepare the fullest 

 possible notes as weU as sketches of the live colors and markings. . . . 

 AU fresh specimens were described and sketched on prepared outlines 

 on the spot. Wherever possible color photographs were taken, but 

 on the whole, these are of relatively less value than a rapid sketch 

 made by an experienced worker on the spot. ..." 



The illustrations mentioned by Smith were made by Margaret 

 M. Smith and are of the greatest value in the recognition of species 

 of parrot fishes. 



It is most unfortunate, however, that apparently Smith either 

 ignored or made little effort to determine the validity of already 



