REPORT OF COMMISSIONER OF FISH AND FISHERIES. [86] 



^Promicropterua Gill. 



998. RhjrpticusbiBtrispinus' Mitchill. S. (855,857?) 



999. RJiypticus nigripinnis* Gill. P. (856) 



Family CIII.— PlilACANTHlDiE. (87) 



315.— PRIACANTHUS Cuvier. 



1000. Priacanthus catalufa^ Poey. W. 



316.— PSEUDOPRIACANTHUS* Bleeker. 



1001. Pseudopriacanthus altus Gill. B. (P59) 



Family CIV.— LOBOTID^.s 



317.— LOBOTES Cuvier. (285) 



1002. Lobotes surinamensis Bloch. N. S. W. P. (876) 



Family CV.— SPAEID^. 



318 — XENICHTHYS Gill. 



1003. Xenichthysxanti'' Gill. P. 



319.— XENISTIUS .Jordan & Gilbert. (281) 



1004. Xenistiuscaliforniensis Steiuclachtior. C. (860) 



320.— HOPLOPAGRUS ' Gill. 



1005. Hoplopagrus giintheri Gill. P. 



' Bodianns btsirispinua Mitchill, Amer. Monthly Magazine, IV, 1818, 247 (Straits 

 of Bahama,)=Rhypticus maculatua Holbrook = ? 7?7»yj><tCHS piluitosiis Goode «fc Bean 

 (yoiiu<;). The .specimen from Newport, R. I., recorded by Cope as Promicropterus deco- 

 ratus seema to belong to this species. 



-lilij/pticus nigripinnis Gill, 1861. Bhypticus maculatua Gill, 1862 =Promieropterua 

 decora tu8 Gill, 1863. Cape Sau Lucas to Panama. 



■■•The species called in the Synopsis Priacanthus macrophihalnma (p. 544) and Pria- 

 canthus arenatua (p. 971) should stand as Priacanthus catalufa Poey; Catalufa, Big-eye, 

 BulVa-ciie. Instead of the synonymy in the Synopsis, read — 



(C'a<ah//oParra, Descr. Dif. Piezas Hist. Nat., 1787 ; Priacanthuamacrophthahnua Cuv. 

 & Val., Ill, 95 in part; not Anthias macrophthalmus Bloch, which is an East Indian 

 species; Priacanthua macrophthalmua Giiuther, I, 215; Priacanthus catalufa Poey, Free. 

 Ac. Nat. Sci. Phila., 1863, lri2; not Priacanthua arenatua C. & V. ) 



■• Pseudopriacanthus Bleeker should be recognized as a genus distinct from Priacan- 

 thus. 



* The genus Lobotea should be removed from the family of Sparidce and placed in or 

 near the Serranidw, with which it agrees in many respects, differing in the absence 

 of teeth on the vomer. It may stand as a separate family LOBOTiD.a;, which has 

 been defined by Professor Gill, Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., 1882, 560. 



''•Xenichthya xanii Gill, Proc. Ac. Nat. Sci. Phila., 1863, S'A ^ Xenichthya xenops Jor- 

 dan »fc Gilbert, Bull. U. S. Fish Com., 18rt2, 325. Cape San Lucas to Panama. 



7 Hoplopagrus Gill. 



(Gill, Proc. Ac. Nat. Sci. Phila., 1862, 253; type Hoplopagrua giintheri GiW.) 



This genus resembles iu<;'an«« in most respects, differing strikingly in the structure 

 of the anterior nostril and in the dentition. The anterior nostril is remote from the 



