PKOCKEDIXGS OF UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM. 365 



NOTi:S OIV TME FISUE!!« OF BEAUFORT HARBOR, IVORTIl (AROI.IIVA. 

 By DAVID S. JOKDAN ami CHARLES II. 01L,B£KT. 



In the Proceeding-.s of the Phihulelphia Academy of jSTatural Sciences 

 for 1877, pp. 203-218, is a paper entitled "Notes on the Natural History 

 of Fort Macou, N. C, and Vicinity (No. 3)," by Dr. H. 0. Yarrow, which 

 treats of the species of fishes obtained by T>rs. Cones and Yarrow in 

 Beaufort Harbor and neigliboring waters during the period of their 

 residence at Fort Macon. 



During the past summer (1878), the writers, accompanied by Prof. A. 

 W. Brayton and a party of students from Butler University, spent three 

 weeks in the month of August at Beaufort, the chief business of the 

 party being the collection of fishes. We obtained, in all, about seventy- 

 five species, many of which are not included in Dr. Yarrow's list. 



For the purpose of making as complete a showing of the Ichthyology 

 of the North Carolina coast as possible, we here include not only the 

 species which we have ourselves observed, but also those taken by 

 Drs. Coues and Yarrow. Brief notes on the local habits or distiibu- 

 tion of each species are given, as well as occasional critical remarks on 

 the nomenclature. The sequence and nomenclature are essentially as in 

 Professor Gill's Catalogue of the Fishes of the East Coast of North 

 America, 1873. The vernacular names here given are onlv those used 

 by the Beaufort fishermen. 



Family LOPHIID^. 

 Genus LOPHIUS Linn. 



1. Lophius piscatorius L. — All-month. 

 {Lopldus americanuH Gill, 1. c.) 



Not seen alive; two sets of jaw-bones picked up on the beach below 

 Cape Lookout. Said to be occasionally taken by the fishennen. Until 

 some evidence other than the difference of habitat is offered to show 

 that the American " Angler," Lophius amcricanus DeKay, is distinct from 

 the European Lophius piscatorius L., it seems to us that the burden of 

 proof is on the side of the doubtful species. It seems better to consider 

 the two forms on opposite sides of the Atlantic as identical until proved 

 to be distinct, rather than distinct until proved to be identical. In the 

 case of this and numerous other northern fishes of \Aide range. Dr. Gill 

 (1. c), on the contrary, has "preferred to retain the names given to the 

 American forms as distinct species, although he is inchned to believe 

 that they will eventually be found to be co-specific with other for-ras." 



