BIOLOGICAL SURVEY OF WOODS HOLE AND VICINITY. 163 
The following is a list of the species of fishes recorded during the survey dredging. 
The asterisk, here as elsewhere, denotes those species which were taken at 10 or more 
stations. 
*Raja erinacea (chart 198). *Prionotus carolinus (chart 205). 
Gasterosteus aculeatus. Gobiosoma bosci. 
*Syngnathus fuscus (chart 199). *Pholis gunnellus (chart 206). 
*Ammodytes americanus (chart 200). Ulvaria subbifurcata. 
Poronotus triacanthus. Zoarces anguillaris. 
Centropristes striatus. Merluccius bilinearis. 
*Stenotomus chrysops (chart 2or). Urophycis regius. 
*Tautogolabrus adspersus (chart 202). Urophycis tenuis. 
Monacanthus hispidus. Urophycis chuss. 
*Spheroides maculatus (chart 203). *Paralichthys dentatus (chart 207). 
*Myoxocephalus zneus (chart 204). *Paralichthys oblongus (chart 208). 
Myoxocephalus octodecimspinosus. Limanda ferruginea. 
Hemitripterus americanus. *Pseudopleuronectes americanus (chart 209). 
Cyclopterus lumpus. *Lophopsetta maculata (chart 210). 
Neoliparis atlanticus. Lophius piscatorius. 
The 13 most common species which were taken in the dredge may be grouped as 
follows in respect to their known geographical range: Predominantly northern, 2; pre- 
dominantly southern, 5; approximately equal, 6. The ranges for these species will not 
be stated here, since these are given in the table below, which gives the distribution 
of all our local species. 
Leaving the consideration of these few species which were taken with the dredge 
and passing to a consideration of the entire array of species which have been reported 
from the vicinity of Woods Hole, we may say that our local fish fauna is overwhelmingly 
southern in its character. In the subjoined lists the Woods Hole fishes have been 
grouped into (1) those which are predominantly northward ranging; (2) those which are 
predominantly southward ranging; and (3) those which have an approximately equal 
range in both directions or regarding which the data are not sufficiently known. The 
distributions here stated are taken in the main from Jordan and Evermann’s “Fishes 
of North and Middle America,’ supplemented by data published by H. M. Smith and 
by W. C. Kendall. 
It will be seen that only 29 species, or less than 12 per cent of the entire number, 
are grouped among the northward-ranging forms, while over 75 per cent are grouped 
among the southward-ranging forms. The remaining 13 per cent can not well be classed 
in either division, and they have accordingly been grouped by themselves. 
Viewing these data in another way, it will be seen that nearly half of the total 
number of species (48 per cent) have not been recorded from any point north of Cape 
Cod. In this connection allowance must of course be made for the possibility that the 
frequent appearance of Cape Cod as the northern limit of distribution, according to 
published reports, results largely from the circumstance that the fishes of Cape Cod 
and vicinity have been more fully listed than those of almost any other point on the 
coast. An equally diligent search of the waters to the northward will probably reveal 
the presence of many species which have hitherto been supposed to be limited by this 
barrier.? 
@¥or example, Kendall (1908) records a number of species for northern New England, which by Jordan and Evermann were 
not listed for points to the north of Cape Cod. 
