Stover's Synopsis of the Fishes of North America. 1'29 



rows of blackish spots between the rays ; six or seven pairs of blackish lines along each pec- 

 toral. Five or six blackish spots upon each ray of the ventral. Scales at the base of the 

 caudal and pectorals. Back of the anus is the genital papilla, obtuse and slightly denticulated, 

 flattened from before backwards. 



D. 6, 1 -9. P. 1G. V. 1-5. A. 1 -9. C. 13. Length, 12 or 14 inches. 



Caribbean Sea, Cuv. 



Called " Guavina," at Porto Rico. 



Le Philypne dormeur (Philypnus dormilalor, C-v., Platesccphalus dormitntor, Sens.), Ccv. el V *: 



p. 265, pi. 25-). 



FAMILY XIII. LOPHIDT.. 



Scales usually absent, or replaced by bony plates, or by small grains armed 

 with spines. The two carpal bones elongated, and forming a kind of arm to 

 support the pectoral fin. Branchial aperture round, or a vertical slit behind the 

 pectorals. Suborbital bone wanting, except in the genus Malthea. 



GENUS I. LOPHIUS, Artedi. 

 Head enormously large, broad, and depressed. Mouth large, armed with 

 slender conical teeth on the jaws, palatines, vomer, and pharyngeals. Tongue 

 smooth. Branchial rays, six ; branchial arches, three. Dorsal fins, two ; 

 the anterior rays distant, detached, forming long filaments, supporting fleshy 

 slips. 



1. Lophius Americanus, Cuv. 



Intermaxillary teeth smaller, and those of the vomer larger, than in the European species. 



D. 3-11. P. 25. V. 5. A. 9. C. 8. Length, 2 to 3 feet. 



Maine, Massachusetts, Storer. New York, Mjtchill, Cuv., Dekay. Delaware. 



Cuv. 



Lophiua piscator, Bellows-fish nr Common Angler, Hitchiu, Trans. Lit. and 1 . of N. V., i. p. 463. 



Lophius piscatorius, Angler, Frog-fish, Sea-devil, Goose-fish, Wide Oab, Stoker's Report, pp ri an I 

 La Baudoire d'Amerique, Lophius Americanus, Cuv. el Vat... xii. p. 3S0. 

 Lophius Americanus, American Angler, Dekay's Kcport, p. 102, pi. 2S, fig. 87. 



Note. In a notice of Dekay's Report in Silliman's Journal, I doubted whether our species 

 was distinct from the European. It appeared in that report as a new species, Cuv. et Val. 

 not being cited. As I had not seen their twelfth volume, I was not aware that it had been 

 there described under the above-mentioned name. As, however, Ctivier describes ours as 

 distinct from the European species, after having undoubtedly seen both species, I can have 

 no hesitation in admitting it as such. 



60 



