16 EEPORT OF COMMISSIONER OF FISH AND FISHERIES. 



ing the rivers of tlie South and the presence of the peculiar j^arasite 

 were quite unknown. 



Latrobe's description is reproduced in Appendix D, and the reader 

 may decide the question for himself. It is believed that the following 

 circumstances clearly indicate the meaning of its author : 



(1.) The figure, while undeniably bad, resembles the menhaden very 

 closely, and manifestly cannot be intended to represent any allied 

 species. Thereon tour, were the missing dorsal fin supplied, is similar 

 to that of the menhaden, the black spot upon the scapular region is con- 

 stant m the menhaden only, though a similar one is occasionally seen 

 upon the shad and the alewife. While the figure resembles somewhat 

 the menhaden, it does not resemble the allied species. 



(2.) The name " bay alewife " is still applied to the menhaden in this 

 region. This is a strong argument, for, although seventy-five years have 

 passed since Latrobe wrote, the persistence of popular names is very 

 remarkable, as I have elsewhere pointed out.* Moreover, Latrobe was 

 also acquainted with a " herring" and a " shad." These being elimin- 

 ated, there is no fish but the menhaden to which the description in 

 question can refer. 



(3.) The habits of the alewife as described by Latrobe are essentially 

 the same as those of the menhaden in the present day. As has been 

 remarked, it is only recently that the river-ascending habits of the spe- 

 cies have been understood, and the statement that the alewife began to 

 ascend the Potomac in March, which was two months earlier than the 

 menhaden was known to strike our coast, formerly was thought to 

 throw the identity of the two out of question. 



(4.) The presence of the crustacean parasite is the strongest argument 

 of all. While this is found in the mouths of a large percentage of the 

 southern menhaden, it has never once been found attached to any other 

 species, although careful search has been made by several persons. As 

 has been remarked, the northern menhaden are free from this parasite, 

 and this is still another reason for the failure to identify. 



31. The next mention of this species was by Professor Mitchill, under 

 the name Glupea menJiadenA By this specific name it has been known 

 ever since, and it is to be regretted that it is necessary to replace by 

 another a name so appropriate and of such long standing. 



Descriptions of later dates. 



32. ]n 1818, the eccentric Eafinesque redescribed the species as Clupea 

 neglecta, the specific name being chosen because he supposed the species 

 to have been neglected by Dr. Mitchill in his comprehensive catalogue 

 of the fishes of IsTew York.^ 



* Catalogue of the Fishes of the Bermudas, 1876, p. 15. 



t The tishes of New York described aud arranged. <^ Transactions of the Literary and 

 Philosophical Society of New York, Vol. I, 1815, p. 453. 

 t American Monthly Magazine, Vol. II, 1818, p. 206. 



