PROCEEDINGS OF UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM. 8T 



This is not of veiy frequent occiurenee in our markets, althougii it 

 can scarcely be called rare. It attains a larger size than any other of 

 our species except the true Hippo(jlossu,s, and it is probably this circum- 

 stance, together with its elongated form, that has led the fishermen to 

 name it the " Bastard Ilalibut." Large specimens are sold under this 

 name, but immature individuals are retailed as "Turbot." The largest 

 I have yet seen weighed, respectively, 43 and 08 pounds, and the latter 

 measured about 4 feet 10 inches iu lengtli when entire. It is very sel- 

 dom taken in the bay, and is said to be of more frequent occurrence 

 southwards than northwards, but I cannot at present ascertain its south- 

 ern range. From its occuiTcnce at Monterey it is often called the Mon- 

 terey halibut. It is said to be a tough, coarse iish. It is taken as far 

 north as Tomales Bay. Nos. 1, 2, ;3, and 4 (of which the dimensions 

 are given) are young alcoholic specimens in the Museum of the Cal. 

 Acad. Sci., and their dorsal and anal fin-rays were, respectively, D. 76, 

 A. 60; D. 70, A. 55; D. 70, A. 55; and D. 71, A. 53. Ko. 5 had 69 dor- 

 sal and 53 anal raya. Some sj^ecimens have a few pores on the occiput 

 behind and above the horizon of the upper eye, running downwards and 

 backwards towards the lateral line. The number of scales in the lateral 

 line is very difficult to count. From all the other Californian species 

 with large jaws, it may be known by its elongate form and boldly arched 

 lateral line. 



I have for some time suspected that Uropsetta caUfornica (Ayres) Gill, 

 and Paralichthys maculosus Gii-ard, were identical, and I think that I can 

 now demonstrate their identity beyond reasonable doubt. My suspicion 

 arose as follows : The large specimens of the Monterey halibutj^ weighing 

 40-50 pounds, are considered by all the dealers to be of the same species as 

 the small specimens, and, from their geneial similarity, no doubt as to 

 theii- identity with each other and with Uropsetta calif or nica arose in my 

 mind until, on critically comparing a small individual with Gmird's de- 

 scription of P. maculosus, I found that it agreed with the latter in every 

 particular except in its sinistral eyes and color. jSTow arose two ques- 

 tions : 1st. Were the large individuals really specifically identical with 

 the small ones f 2d. Was there a dextral form, and, if so, was the dex- 

 tral form a distinct species ? 



I have not yet had the opportunity to take fuU measiu'ements of a full- 

 grown individual, as all the large ones I have seen were cut up before I 

 examined them, but 1 have the following reasons to give for including 

 all und(;r one si)ecics : 



1st. The form of the caudal fin and the outline of the posterior part of 

 the body are alike in large and small sinistral individuals ; the former 

 havhig tlie sinuous posterior margin, with the central and external rays 

 produced, described by Girard as characteristic of P. maculosus. 



2d. The smaller sinistral individuals agree with Ayres's description 

 of Hipjmglossus ( Uropsetta) californicus, except in the form of the tail, 

 which is shown as sMghtly concave in Ayres's figure (Proc. Cal. Acad. 

 Proc. Nat. Mus. 79 6 July 2, 1 ?< 79. 



