176 llEPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES. 



mistake, and our private opinion is that no other species than the red 

 mullet is a native tish'M Following up this fancy, under the caption 

 "Gex. Sarmullus" (a new name!) he specifies (p. 271) the red mullet, 

 MuUas hcn'hatu!^^ and, after a break of many pages, immediately after 

 the mackerel (p. SO-i), he names the surmullet, j\Iullus suDnuletus. 

 As to the former, he avers (p. 271) that "red mullet have appeared 

 within the last few j^ears in the neighborhood of Boston, but not being 

 at all prized a few onl}' have been exhibited in the market." The sur- 

 mullet was declared (p. 3(H) to be "a variety of the mackerel," and this 

 remark was followed by comments on its place in Roman estimation, 

 on what was evident!}' the chvil) mackerel, and on fishing for mackerel! 



There is a peculiar genus of gadoidean fishes named Banicejjs^ rep- 

 resented by a single species of northern Europe, and the type of a dis- 

 tinct family, Ranicipitidie. To this " Gen. Raniceps " Smith referred 

 two species; one named (p. 209) "Blenny, Blennlus Vivijjarus [Bani- 

 ceps Trlfurcatus, Guv.],"' the other (p. 211)'''' Baniceps Blennoides.-'' The 

 former was evidently the Zoarces angulUaris and consequently belongs 

 to a widely diti'erent species from the " iHvlpaj'us,-^ a different family 

 from Blennlus, and a different family also from Baniceps trifur- 

 cafus. The latter name, we learn from Storer, represented a speci- 

 men " purchased of " Smith, by the Boston Society of Natural History, 

 of a Oryptacantliodea maculatus "with the cuticle abraded;" conse- 

 quently the species belongs to a very distinct family from the genus 

 Banlceps, as well as from the first species. 



Another striking manifestation of ignorance and rashness is dis- 

 pla3^ed in Smith's treatment of two other species. Under the " Gp:n. 

 CoBiTis" (p. 183)he notices the "sucker, Cyprinus Tereii[Catastomus].''\ 

 In the third paragraph under the specific caption he refers to "a strange 

 fish " given by the keeper of the Boston light-house, unknown " to any 

 of the fishermen in his service, which has a mouth precisely like the 

 fish above described; but the body, instead of being round, is quite 

 thin [!] and wide, back of the gills. The color is silvery, mottled with 

 dark waving lines. It is in length about 10 inches, and appropriately 

 denominated the sea-sucker.''' What could this "sea-sucker" have 

 been? One familiar with the fishes of the coast and with Smith's 

 idiosyncrasy might reconcile the notice with the king-fish {Menticirrus 

 ?ieIjuIosus), but the sucker is a malacopterygian and the king-fish an 

 acanthopterygian, and besides, the latter has a mouth not at all like that 

 of a sucker in reality! All this is quite true, but on an examination of 

 the very specimen mentioned by Smith, it was found l)y Storer to l:>e a 

 king-fish. 



How Smith was led to put the sucker in the genus C'ohlt is and to 

 separate it from its near relation, the chub sucker, Bi'limjzon sucetta, 

 which was placed in the genus Cyprinus as the "chub, Cyprinus ohJon- 

 gus,^' is not at all comprehensible. 



