EDIBLE FISHES OF QUEENSLAND.— OGILBY. 87 



with the publication of the second volume of the " British Museum Catalogue of 

 Fishes ' ' Giinther revived the old error by again associating our species with the 

 Zeus gallus of Linnaeus. This action was taken in direct defiance of the Swedish 

 author's assertion " habitat in America," and of his references to Marcgrave, 

 the historian of Brazil about the middle of the seventeenth century, and of 

 Patrick Brown, a contemporary of Linnaaus, who published his " Civil and 

 Natural History of Jamaica" only two years previously to that of the tenth 

 edition of the " Systema Natura?." This deliberate return to an already refuted 

 error had immediate consequences, resulting in indescribable confusion, the effects 

 of which are still apparent. In 1876 the same author made a notable addition 

 to the distribution of the species, recording it on the authority of Garrett from 

 the Hawaiian Archipelago in the North Pacific and the Society Group in the 

 South. In the same place he makes the earliest announcement of its occurrence 

 in Australia — " und estreckt sich bis andie Xordkuste Australiens " — a record 

 which Macleay failed to discover. AVhile, however, Giinther always insisted on 

 the validity of the two Indo-Pacific species, Day in 1865 introduced yet another 

 disturbing influence to the already too involved history of these fishes, by 

 suggesting that A. ciUaris might be only the young of this species. He writes of 

 A. ciliaris — ■" Large ones have not been recorded, unless the G. gallus is the 

 mature of this species ' ' ; and again — ' ' The difference between the C. gallus and 

 C. ciliaris, if any exists, ' ' etc. The words in themselves were of little importance, 

 yet they were destined to have far-reaching results, not the least of which was 

 that in 1896 Jordan and Evermann united the two species under the common 

 name Alectis ciliaris, giving among other things as an excuse for their action — 

 ' ' we see no reason for doubting that ciliaris is the young of gallus, as has been 

 supposed by Dr. Day and. others."* This unfortunate assumption was imme- 

 diately accepted as correct by most if not all American ichthyologists who wrote 

 on the subject, with the consequence that for eight years the references to these 

 fishes are so inextricably confused that it is almost impossible to disentangle them, 

 and give to each its proper application. Nor was this confusion wholly confined 

 to America, for Stead in 1906 under C. ciliaris figures that fish but writes of its 

 congener. In 1907, however, Jordan and Richardson (1), after comparing 

 examples from Formosa with others of the same size from Panama, wrote — 

 " Comparison of adult specimens . . . leaves no doubt that the two are 

 distinct species." 



Uses : — Of its value as a food fish we have but little information, but what 

 we have is favorable. Valenciennes, on the authority of Leschenault, says that 

 " it is good to eat. ' ' Day tells us that on the Malabar Coast it is " esteemed as 

 food." Jordan and Evermann consider it " a food fish of some importance"; 

 while Kent, who calls it the ' ' diamond-fish, ' ' a name which properly belongs to 

 Monodactylus argenteus, remarks that " it is met with in some abundance north- 

 ward from Port Denison, and is very delicate eating." 



4 The italics are ours. 



