REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES. 181 



tlic eulogist and that now to be presented, it must be remembered that 

 the former was hampered by the demands of a memorial celebration, 

 while on the present occasion onl}- the facts need be considered. 



In the sixth decade of the past century the classification proposed 

 for the fishes by Cuvier, in 1829, in the second edition of the "Reg-ne 

 Animal,*'' was still regnant. Naturally, then, Storer adopted it for hi? 

 History, as he had previously for his Report. He added diagnoses of 

 the families which were in almost all cases translations of the essential 

 characteristics assigned to them by Cuvier. In the author's nomen- 

 clature he was "guided, as far as possible, by the principle which 

 would give the credit of a species to the author who first placed it 

 undev its appropriate genus. This plan," he truly added, he "was 

 led to understand is being adopted ])y our most eminent naturalists." 

 For a time such was the case. 



The work was and is of such importance that some analysis may be 

 welcome. 



As long; as the writer had a guide to follow his faults of taxonomy 

 were mainly those of his guides, but he had the fortune, good or bad, 

 to obtain specimens of types unknown to the authors whose views he 

 followed, and then he had to determine their affinities as best he might 

 The result by no means did credit to his perspicacity. Among these 

 types were the genera Boleosoina and t')-tjptac(intJt<)des. Boleosoma 

 had been quite correctly referred l^}^ Dekay to the famih^ of Percidse, 

 and is in fact a perch in miniature. Yet Storer referred it to the 

 "Triglidje," between Acanthocottus and Asptdophorus {Ai<pidopho- 

 roldes), in spite of the fact that he declared (after Cuvier) that ''their 

 general character consists in having the suborbital ])one more or less 

 extended over the cheek and articulated liehind with the preopercu- 

 lum." Why he should have referred to such a family a genus with 

 the suborbitals reduced to such an extent that tliey had been said to be 

 absent is a myster}^ which he made no attempt to explain. 



Cri/ptacanthodes was first named by Storer in 1839. It is an elon- 

 gated naked fish without au}^ enlarged suborbital bones and entirely 

 unlike an}' recognized triglid. On the other hand, it has man}- charac- 

 ters in common with genera of the family of ' ' Gobidas " (as he called it), 

 and in accordance with his own definition he should have referred it to 

 that family. In fact the genus is the type of a peculiar famil}- nearly 

 related to that of the gunnells. 



The same ineptitude for the appreciation of characters or form is 

 manifest in the treatment of species which he actually referred to the 

 family ''Gobidue." To the genus Blennius was relegated a species 

 named Blennius serpent inns, and to the very closely related genus 

 Pholk was assigned another species named PhoUs suhhifurcatus. Now 

 the true species of Blennius and PlwUs have a ver}' characteristic phys- 

 iognomy, and onh' differ from each other in the fact that the former 



