INTRODUCTION. 
N 1855 Richard Hill published a list of the fishes of Jamaica, enumerating therein 113 genera and 
276 species. Four years later, Dr. Giinther began his Catalogue of the Fishes in the British Museum, 
in which h2 recorded very many Jamaican species, and what is more important, introduced new systems 
of classification which were so widely accepted, that any list of fishes drawn up previously to this work 
became altogether out of date and sorely in need of revision. In 1881 Hill’s list was reprinted in the 
Handbook of Jamaica, but at the same time endeavours were made to obtain a knowledge of our fishes 
more in accordance with the views of modern Ichthyologists, and collections were made by Mr. J. J. 
Bowrey and Mr. Musgrave, Jr. Mr. Bowrey sent from the Institute specimens of a hundred species to 
the United States National Museum, and these formed the subject of a paper by Messrs. Bean and Dresel 
in 1884. Duplicates of these are preserved in the Museum of the Institute. 
The present list is simply a bringing-together of the various records, with the nomenclature amended 
so as to be as far as possible up to date. In dealing with Hill’s list, considerable difficulty has been met, 
owing to the fact that it is little more than a catalogue of names, many of which are but doubtfully 
correct. Wherever I have been able to do so with certainty, I have placed obsolete names as synonyms 
under the more correct designations, and in other instances I have indicated probable synonymy and 
errors ; but there remain many names in the list which will very probably have to be eventually struck 
out, but which in the absence of positive information must for the present remain. Thus for example 
when in a genus Hill appears to have found one species, and Giinther similarly records only one, but that 
in a distinct though allied form, it becomes very probable that in reality the same fish was intended by 
both authors, and that Hill’s identification was erroneous. It must not be supposed that Hill was careless 
or blameworthy in his work: all scientific works become out of date in time, and such actualerrors as he 
may have made are to be attributed to the difficulties under which he laboured. Consequently, it would 
be unjust to ignore anything he wrote, and we can only keep the records, and trust that further investi- 
gations will clear up all dithculties.* 
In the classification of the species Dr. Giinther’s British Museum Catalogue has been mainly fol- 
lowed: but the order of the families and genera is with one or two exceptions that of his later book, An 
Introduction to the Study of Fishes (1880)—an invaluable work, which may be consulted in the Library 
of the Institute. The later volumes of the Proceedings ef the United States National Museum 
have also been consulted, and much useful information found therein. It will be noticed that in several 
families the nomenclature is partly according to Giinther, and partly after Gill, Jordan, and other 
American authors. This has resulted because I have endeavoured so far as possible to take advantage 
of the latest researches, but often have not felt at liberty to introduce such sweeping changes as seem 
logically necessary without further information. It matters little if in a list like this some species 
appear under Mesoprion that would, according to recent American authors, be more properly placed in 
Lutjanus ; but it would matter very much if in the endeavour to be strictly up to date, a number of alter- 
tions were made on insufficient or mis:aken grounds. On the other hand, when certain species have 
been definitely referred to new or different genera by recent writers, I have usually preferred to adopt 
these changes, without judging of their merits, on the assumption that the latest writer is most likely to 
be correct. Unfortunately, Vol. I. of Giinther’s catalogue is wanting in the Library, and consequently 
the classification of the Percide and allied families has suffered. a 
The descriptive notes given merely indicate some of the more obvious external characters, taken 
mainly from Giinther’s works. It is hoped that they will prove useful, but before deciding on the name 
of any fish, it should be brought to the Institute and compared with the specimens in the Museum, and 
the descriptions and figures of Giinther or Cuvier and Valenciennes. The definitions of the families are 
largely taken from Vol. II of Wallace’s Geographical Distribution of Animals. The local names are 
nearly all from Bean and Dresel’s paper: it does not appear in that work whence these names were ob- 
tained, but Mr. Bowrey informs me that they were given to him by Mr. Augustus Barrous, a fisherman 
of Kingston. Mr. Barrous has given me some interesting memoranda respecting the habits of some of 
the fishes, a few of which are noted here under the species they refer to. 
* Mr. L. Hutchings informs me that he has copious MSS. of Hill’s, and drawings of the fishes he examined. I hope to be able 
to examine these valuable records, and through them clear up at least the majority of obscure points referred to, 
