45 



an abnormal number); posterior canine present in the upper jaw. The 

 superior maxillary does not reach to the vertical from the anterior mar- 

 gin of the orbit. Caudal fin deeply concave behind, angles produced. 

 »The anterior portion of the body from behind the gill-opening to a line 

 drawn vertically from the commencement of the soft dorsal to the anal 

 fin reddish (in alcohol) ; posteriorly blackish-brown ; head blackish- 

 brown, except lower jaw and chin, which are reddish- white. ( Ayres states 

 the chin to be white in life.) The color on the chin extends backward 

 to a line drawn obliquely downward from the angle of the mouth. A. 

 light-colored vertical band on the posterior margin of the caudal ; pos- 

 terior extremities of soft dorsal and anal lighter colored. 



Total length, 27 inches; height of the body at its greatest elevation, 

 7 inches. 



EMBIOTOCIDJ]. 



CYMATOGASTER AGGEEGATUS, Gib. [No. 12966]. 



Micrometrus aggregatus, Gibbons, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila., vii, 1854, 125. — A. Agassiz, 



Proc. Boston Soc. Nat. Hist., 1861, 128, 

 Cymalogaster aggregatus, Gibbons, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila., vii, 1854, lOG.— Gill, 



Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila., 1862, p. 275 (foot-note). 

 Eolconotus rhodoterus, GiRART), Froc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila., vii, 1854, 141, 152; 1855, 



322 ; P. E. E. Eeport, x, 1858, 193, pis. 35 and 36, figs. 1-4 ; pi. 26, f. 7 and 



8.— SUCKLEY, Nat. Hist, Wash. Terr., 1860, 358 (nee Agass.). 

 Metrogaster aggregatus, A. Agassiz, Proc. Boston Soc. Nat. Hist., 1861, 133, 

 Ditrema aggregatum, Gunther, Cat. Fishes, iv, 1862, 248. 



Locality : Mission Bay, San Francisco, Cal. 



In Giinther's Catalogue of Fishes, Vol. iv, p. 248, we find the follow- 

 ing footnote in reference to Girard's figure: ''If the figure of pi. 36 

 has really been drawn from a specimen of this species, the control over 

 the artist must have been very careless, the scales being represented 

 much too small." The eminent authority whom we have just quoted 

 evidently had the upper figure of the plate, Amphistichus similis, in 

 which the scales are correctly represented small, in his mind's eye when 

 he charged the American ichthyologist with being careless; otherwise, 

 we cannot see how he made the mistake which he did. We can certify 

 by actual measurements that the scales of Eolconotus rhodoierus,t\ie fish 

 in question, are suflQciently accurately represented in figure 1, plate 36, 

 and are of the same size as those of the figures on the preceding plate, 

 concerning which the gentleman is silent, leaving us to infer that they 

 are correct in that respect. 



