BIOLOGICAL SURVEY OF WOODS HOLE AND VICINITY. 161 
thus far presented. This contained over 200 species of marine fishes. In several sup- 
plementary lists and special notes Dr. Smith has amplified this catalogue.% 
In 1908 Kendall published a “List of the Pisces” for the ‘‘Fauna of New England,” 
series of the Boston Society of Natural History, but few changes or additions were made 
as regards the fishes of the vicinity of Woods Hole. All this material, together with 
many new data and a few entirely new records for species, have been summarized in the 
annotated list included in the present report.? In the preparation of the latter con- 
siderable collections of unpublished notes by Mr. Edwards were examined, and he 
himself was continually questioned throughout the progress of the work. The data 
contributed by Mr. Edwards were based (1) on records from the fish traps operated by 
the Bureau of Fisheries in the neighborhood of the Woods Hole station; (2) on records 
from the fyke nets, which have been set during the fall, winter, and spring in both the 
harbors of Woods Hole; (3) on the records of innumerable seining trips made at various 
times of the year, but particularly in the summer months; (4) the collections made by 
the tow net suspended from the end of the pier (furnishing records of the occurrence of 
young fishes); and (5) from specimens or information received from fishermen through- 
out all of the local waters. Most of the specimens collected during the dredging opera- 
tions, and many more which were caught in other ways during this period, were identi- 
fied by the authors of this report. Those concerning which any doubt was felt were 
referred to the ichthyologists of the Bureau of Fisheries. To Dr. H. M. Smith and Dr. 
W. C. Kendall we are indebted for a critical examination of our check list of fishes. 
In our list of species are comprised 2 Marsipobranchii, 26 Selachii, and 219(+ 4°?) 
Teleostomi. In our comparative table (p. 89) it will be seen that the fishes have been 
included in only two of the other faunal catalogues therein considered. Herdman 
records 134 species for the Irish Sea, i. e., hardly more than half the number comprised 
in our own catalogue, while Graeffe lists 181 species for the Gulf of Trieste. Here, as 
elsewhere, it would be interesting to know how largely these differences in the number 
of species are actual and how largely they are due to the thoroughness of the collecting 
and recording. It must be borne in mind that our own list comprises a large number of 
species which are not indigenous, being stragglers, whose presence in our waters is due 
to the proximity of the Gulf Stream. The number of such exotic species is probably 
peculiarly high in our region. 
Owing to the small number of species taken by the dredge and to the comparative 
paucity of the records even for such as were taken, the data thus gained relating to the 
local distribution of these species have not been very impressive. In general we may say, 
however, that while some species appeared to have an unrestricted distribution in local 
waters, many more fishes were taken in Vineyard Sound than in Buzzards Bay; likewise 
that a number of species occurred wholly or mainly at the western end of the Sound.¢ 
4 See bibliographic list for the faunal catalogue, p. 7or. 
b The records cf Cope (1870) for Newport have beenincluded here, although they were not considered by Smith, who limited 
the ‘‘vicinity of Woods Hole’’ to a somewhat smaller area than the ‘‘Woods Hole Region’’ of the present report. 
It is likely that this latter fact is in a certain measure due to the greater frequency with which the beam trawl was employed 
upon the sandy bottoms at the western end of Vineyard Sound. ‘This instrument was obviously better adapted to catching and 
retaining fishes than were the other types of dredge employed. 
16269°—Bull. 31, pt 1—13 
It 
