26 PEOCEEDINGS OF THE 



Mark on the specimen bj' Garden " No. 3. Perca." 

 Referred to by Goode & Bean, p. 203, under the erroneons 

 number 35. 



Linue's Perca formosa is based : — 



1. Partly on Catesby's figure, which he quotes (tab. 6) and 



which represents a well-known species of Hcemulon ; part 

 of Linne's description, " P. dorsalis anterior abbreviata 

 versus posteriorem," can apply to this fish only. 



2. Partly on the specimen sent by Garden, and which is a 



Centropristis. 

 For which of these two fishes should the name formosa be 

 retained ? As Dr. Jordan seems to have been the first to point 

 out the composition of this Linnean species (Proc. U.S. Nat. 

 Mus. 1883, p. 600), I think that he should be followed in 

 leaving the name to the Squirrel-fish of South Carolina. 



(Linnean name.) (Modern name.) 



Perca philadelphica. Centropristis trifurcus. 



(93) Skin, 6 in. long. 



cfr. Garden's label : No. 2. Perca sp. Nostrat. : b. a Chub. 

 156. Mark on the specimen by Garden, " No. 2. Perca." 

 Keferred to by Goode & Bean, p. 202. 



This is the specimen from which the notes in the 12th edit, 

 were taken, but it is not the type of P. philadelphica of the 

 10th edit., as no specimen had reached Linne from Garden at 

 the time of the publication of that edition. 



Micropterus salmonoides. 



i^Huro nigricans.) 



(94) Skin, 12| in. long, in good condition. 



cfr. Garden's label : No. 40. Labrus. Nostratibus Freshwater 

 158. Trout. 



Mentioned in Corresp. Linn. i. p. 306. 



Identified by Goode & Bean, p. 208. 



Not admitted by Linn, in Syst. Nat. 



Labrus auritns (cotype). Pomotis auritus. 



(95) Skin, 7 in. long, rather damaged. 



Garden's label : No. 41. Labrus. Nostrat. Eed-bellied Perch. 

 Erroneously referred to by Goode & Beau as " No. 11. 

 Garden," p. 200. 



Labrus auritus (cotype). Pomotis punctatus. 



(96) Skin, 6 in. long, in good condition. 



cfr. Garden's label : No. 42. Labrus. Nostrat. Speckled Perch. 



loJ, ibU. rpjjg presence of a more or less rudimentary supplemental 



maxillary bone is regarded by American authors as a sufficient 



ground for maintaining a genus Apomotis as distinct from 



Pomotis. Mr, Boulenger refers to this genus Bryttus punctatus 



