1915] ICHTHYOLOGICAL NOTES 115 
these scars were not present, it might be that the scale had not grown 
enough for the beginnings to be included. An examination of several 
scales of each species showed that even in the central area there was a 
constant difference. The transverse lines are closer together in the 
pilchard and they show a difference in the nature of the interruption 
towards the median line. The scales of the fry correspond to the central 
portion of the herring scale rather than that of the pilchard and the 
question of the species was definitely settled. Three camera lucida 
drawings will indicate the comparison. The first is of the complete 
fry scale, the second of a’central portion of the adult herring scale of 
the some size as the previous, and the third of a similar portion of an 
adult pilchard scale. 
Later a more complete series of the young herring was obtained, 
both of older and younger specimens, and it seems as though the change 
to the appearance of the adult takes place very soon after the stage 
that provided the problem above indicated. 
The other instance shows the value in a somewhat different direc- 
tion. On June 8th, 1914, a perch or surf-fish was caught near the Station 
and brought in. On examination, Dr. Willey found that while in 
general it answered very well to the description of the white surf-fish, 
Phanerodon furcatus, yet it differed very materially in some particulars. 
The dorsal fin provided the most noticeable of these. In the typical 
Phanerodon, according to Jordan and Evermann, the spines are all of 
considerable length, gradually increasing from before backward until 
the last spine is often higher than the soft rays, while in the specimen 
the spines were all low, the last one being less than half of the length 
of the soft ray, exactly corresponding to the dorsal fin of a closely allied 
species, Teniotoca lateralis. Specimens of these two species were at 
hand to emphasize these points. 
An examination of the scales was resorted to, in order to get further 
light on the question. The Phanerodon used in comparison was a much 
younger and smaller specimen but the T@niotoca was of full size. The 
scales showed the close relationship between the different species, but 
it was no trouble to see the marked resemblance between the scale of 
the young Phanerodon and the corresponding portion of the scale of 
the specimen in hand and the dissimilarity between it and that of 
Taniotoca. (See figures 30,31 and 32). Taking this into consideration, 
it was impossible to conclude otherwise than that the specimen belonged 
to the species Phanerodon furcatus. 
