Storer’s Synopsis of the Fishes of North America. 381 
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.16. 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 dormitator, Cuv., Platescephalus dormitator, ScuN.), Cuy. et Van., x1. 
p. 255, pl. 258, 
FAMILY XIII. LOPHIDA. 
Scales usually absent, or replaced by bony plates, or by smal] 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, Artepi. 
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, Srorer. New York, Mircuriux, Cuv., Dexay. Delaware, 
Cov. 
Lophius piscator, Bellows-fish or Common Angler, Mircurtr, Trans. Lit. and Phil. Soc. of N. Y., 1. p. 465. 
Lophius piscatorius, Angler, Frog-fish, Sea-devil, Goose-fish, Wide Gab, Srorer’s Report, pp, 71 and 404. 
La Baudoire d’Amérique, Lophius Americanus, Cuv. et Vat., xm. p. 380. 
Lophius Americanus, American Angler, Dexay’s Report, p. 162, pl. 28, fig. 87. 
Norz. In anotice of Dekay’s Reportin 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, Cuvier 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 
