344 Remarks on the Natural History of Fishes. 
calls incorrectly “muraena conger ;’ but more of this in its ap- 
propriate place. 
Five species are mentioned in the family “ PLEuRoNectes,” 
but one of these, “ Hippoglossus vulgaris” —holibut, is found 
on our coast, 
Under the head of “ Platessa vulgaris,” our compiler gives 
the appearance and habits of the European flounder, and says 
“it is one of the most common fish in Massachusetts Bay ;” and 
for a figure, he introduces a wretched copy of Strack’s plate of 
the “ P. vulgaris”—plaice ! 
Two pages beyond, we have a copy of the “ flesus”—“ floun- 
der, from Strack, described as the “plaice; and both the flounder 
and plaice described as the “ Platessa vulgaris.” It will at once 
be perceived that these two copies of foreign fishes should be 
transposed : the plate on page 214 should take the place of that 
on page 216, and vice versa. Neither of these species however, 
the “ vulgaris” nor “ flesus” is found with us. 
Reference is made on page 216, to a species which is called 
the “ American turbot,” supposed to be the “ European pears $5 
it isthe “ Rhombus aquosus”—* watery flounder.” 
Neither the “ Solea vulgaris” —* Sole,” nor “ Rhombus maz- 
imus”—“ Turbot,” were ever seen by any. of our fishermen 
‘upon this coast; the opinion was so firmly established, that what 
is called in our dinar ket the “ turbot” was the same as the foreign 
turbot, that could not persuade the fishermen that they were not 
identical ; it was only when two fine specimens were brought here 
the last season, of the true turbot, from the the coast of “Treland, 
that they were satisfied of their mistake; and even then, one of 
the most experienced of their number istered that although they 
differed, the only difference was this, that wherever a white spot 
existed in the American fish, a spine took its place in the foreign 
species, and that opinion he still entertains, although our fish is 
oblong in its form, and the turbot is nearly circular. 
The xc Cpclagteiies minutus” is probably the -young of the 
“vulgaris.” Although the “Echeneis remora,” is here itro- 
duced with a plate from Strack, it nas not yet been found in our 
waters. 
‘Twenty pages are devoted to the “ “anguilla vulgaris” and 
“muraena conger,” neither of which is found on the coast of 
New England. The former has been mistaken for the “7 
| 
