40 CONTRIBUTIONS TO NORTH AMERICAN ICHTHYOLOGY—II. 
Nominal species. Identification. 
Dioplites treculii, Le Vaillant & Bocourt. 
Dioplites variabilis, (Le 8.) Le V. & Boe... 
Copelandia eriarcha, Jor. t'.-----.--. --.- 
Micropterus pallidus (?). 
Micropterus pallidus (?). 
Copelandia eriarcha. - 
Menotisilythrochlaris or. hess]. 2 2s Xenotis lythrochloris. 
Menotis aurcolue mort woos eee sees see Xenotis aureolus 
Xystroplites cillii, Jior.t. 2055-5... +=-se% Xystroplites gillii. 
Lepiopomus ischyrus, Jor. & Nels. t .----. Lepiopomus ischyrus. 
Apomotis phenax, Cope. & Jor. t .--.----- Apomotis phenax. 
Lepiopomus miniatus, Jor.t -----.-..----- Lepiopomus miniatus. 
Enneacanthus pinniger, Gill & Jor. t...--. Enneacanthus pinniger. 
Enneacanthus margarotis, Gill & Jor..-. Enneacanthus margarotis. 
Enneacanthus milnerianus, Cope, MSS..-. Enneacanthus milnerianus. 
Lepomis apiatus, Cope, MSS. .-.---....---- Lepiopomus apiatus. 
Lepomis mystacalis, Cope, MSS ..---. ---. Lepiopomus mystacalis. 
Xystroplites longimanus, Cope, MSS.-.---. Eupomotis speciosus (?). 
24. XENOTIS LYTHROCHLORIS. 
Icthelis aurita, Rav., Ichthyologia ohiensis, 1820 (not Labrus auritus Linn.; not Le- 
pomis auritus Raf., 1819). 
Lepomis auritus, Cope, Journ. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila. 1868 (not Lepomis auritus Gill). 
Ichthelis sanguinolentus, JORDAN, Man. Vert. 1876 (in part, confounded with X. megalotis 
and X, sanguinolentus. ) 
Xenolis lythrochloris, JORDAN (1877), Bull. U. 8. Nat. Mus. ix, —. 
This elegant species is fairly described by Rafinesque, and quite ac- 
curately by Prof. Cope, but no other writers seem to have distinguished 
it. It does not seem best to retain the name auritus. Rafinesque ap- 
parently took this species for the Linnean awritus, and, if so, this is 
simply a case of mistaken identification, and the name thus given in 
error should not be retained. If we suppose that Rafinesque intended 
to describe his aurita as a new species, we have the anomalous case of 
an author describing a new spec es under the specific name borne by an 
old species which he himself elsewhere precisely indicates as the type 
of his genus. In this view, which would be absurd in regard to any 
author other than Rafinesque, we should have two species, strongly 
resembling each other, in closely related genera, both bearing the same 
specific name, Lepiopomus auritus and Xenotis auritus. This undesira- 
ble arrangement we can avoid by supposing, what is probably the fact, 
that Rafinesque wrongly identified his Icthelis aurita with Labrus auri- 
tus of Linneeus. IRafinesque’s aurita being thus without a specific name, 
