oak Remarks on the Natural History of Fishes. 
been: the only species described, is an inhabitant only of the 
Mediterranean and Black Seas. 
Under the head of “ Fistularia,” we find the “ tabacaria”’ 
illustrated by a figure from Strack ; and our writer says, “ had 
we not two excellent specimens of this fish taken near Holmes’ 
Hole, its existence would not have been credited so far north of 
the Equator.” One of these “ two excellent specimens” belongs 
by purchase to this Society, and is not the foreign fish, but the 
“ serrata.” 
Thus have I taken a hasty review of that portion of the vol- 
ume before us which treats of distinct species : the remainder of 
the work I have not referred to, determined to confine myself 
only to what appeared absolutely necessary to be noticed. The 
remarks upon the “ Anatomy and Physiology of Fishes,” and 
the “ Treatise on Angling,’ are foreign to my purpose. The ac- 
curacy or errors of the former, may be ascertained by consulting 
any standard work on Comparative Anatomy ; of the datter sub- 
ject I plead entire ignorance. 
A few words more and my unpleasant task isdone. The 248 
pages over which we have thus rapidly passed, contain notices of 
105 species, of which 80 are foreigners, and but 25 are found in 
the waters of our State. Of these 105 species, 36 are illustrated 
by figures; of these 36 illustrations, but 9 accompany species 
which are found on our coast; of these 9 figures, 6 are copied 
from “ Strack’s Plates,” and 3 from Mitchill’s “ Fishes of New 
York!’ Of the 36 plates contained in this “ History,” not one 
is drawn from nature. If “the chief value of a written history 
is in its truth, and next in the evidences of its truth,’”* what reli- 
ance can be placed in us as naturalists, when one of our number 
is allowed to publish such a work as this, and it is permitted to 
circulate for years without a word being said or a line written 
to point out its inaccuracies? Why should we wonder that Yar- 
rell, in his “ History of British Fishes,” should really think that 
the “ Silurus glanis” and * Petromyzon marinus” were foun 
in Massachusetts, or that Richardson in his “fauna Boreali 
Americana,” guarded as he generally has been in receiving what 
is stated here, should almost believe that the “ Lampres gutla- 
tus,” and “ Clupea harengus,” and “ Merlangus vulgaris,” and 
PRR oe 
* North American Review, No. 53, p. 439. 
