PROCEEDINGS OF UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM. 57 

 Table of measurements. 



Current number of specimen No. 1. 



Locality San Francisco. 



^■0.2. 

 San Francisco. 



Incbcs : lOOtha 



and I of 

 iOOths. length. 



Inches 



and 

 IOOths. 



IOOths 



of 

 lonsth, 

 including 

 caudal. 



Extreme length 



Body : 



Greatest height 



Greatest width 



Ilcitjlit at ventrals 



Least height of caudal peduncle 



Head : 



Greatest length 



Distance f lom snout to napo 



AVitltli of intoiorbital area 



Length of snout 



Length of maxillary 



Length of mandible 



Diameter of orbit 



Dorsal {spinous) : 



Distance from snout 



Length of base 



Greatest height 



Height at first spine 



Dorsal (soft) : 



Length of base 



Height at longest ray 



Anal : 



Distance from tip of lower jaw 



Length of base 



Height at longest ray 



Caudal t 



Length of middle rays 



Length of external rays 



Pectoial : 



Distance from snout 



Length 



Ventral : 



Distance from tip of lower jaw 



Length 



Branchiostegals 



Dorsal 



Anal 



('audal, principal rays 



Pectoral 



Ventral 



Number of scales in lateral line to base of caudal . . . 

 Number of transverse rows above lateral. line 



13.35 



n.6o 



2.90 

 1.70 



2.90 

 1.03 



2.96 

 1.93 

 .66 

 LOO 

 L14 

 L36 



3.06 

 3.30 



5.55 

 3.46 



L60 

 L80 



2.85 

 2.36 



3.25 



2.16 



6 



XXI, ^\ 



22 



15 



19 



1 



B 

 111 



15 



.248 

 .144 

 .248 

 .01) 



.165 

 .056 

 .86 

 .100 



.085 



.262 



.285 



.4s 



.296 



.138 

 ,152 



.245 

 .202 



.28 

 .185 



The proportions of the two specimens measured differ considerably, 

 No. 2 being muck deeper in proportion to its length than No. 1, and 

 having its greatest depth immediately over the ventrals, instead of at 

 the origin of the dorsal. 



In consequence of the more elongate form, the insertions of the ventrals 

 and of the pectorals are relatively farther back in No. 1 than in No. 2. 



Similar differences of proportion exist in C. constellatus, and it is e\i- 

 dent that no weight can be attached to x^roportion in distinguishing 

 these species. 



Neither is it advisable, in view of individual differences observed, to 

 attach much significance to the length of the ventrals, or to the position 

 of the fork of the lowest lateral line. 



C. maculo-seriatus is by no means scarce in our markets, but is less 

 abundant than guttatus and constellatus. 



An example of this form is in the National Museum at Washington, 

 numbered . 



