394 Miscellanies. 
connected with them, are absolutely rejected. It has been said that 
he should be considered a public benefactor, who makes but a single 
blade of grass grow where none grew before; the same honor ought 
truly to be accorded to another, who, though he cannot create, makes 
known to the community the existence of a new species of edible 
fishes, or that a species already known, though shunned or rejected 
from some unfounded prejudice, may be used with safety and advan- 
tage. This has been done to a considerable extent in this book, and 
no doubt with useful effect. 
The new species described are ten; one, constituting a new genus, 
to which the author has given the name of Cryptacanthodes macula- 
tus. Itis of the family of ‘mailed cheeks,” and particularly dis- 
tinguished from any other genus of this family, by the existence of 
concealed spines on the operculum, preoperculum and scapular bones. 
It seems to be established on correct principles, and will undoubtedly 
be adopted by ichthyologists. 'The other new species are 
holis sub-bifurcatus, 
every argenteus, 
ulchellus, 
isa Americana, 
Platessa ferruginea, 
Echeneis quatuordecem-laminatus, 
Syngnathus fuscus, 
Monocanthus Massachusettensis. 
One of these is the common cod, of Massachusetts Bay, which Dr. 
_ Storer considers not to be sufliciently identified with the Morrhua 
vulgaris, of Europe, and therefore describes it asa new species, 
under the name of M. Americana. If this is a new species, it is a 
most extraordinary instance of a most abundant animal having passed 
through the hands of various observers, for a great length of time, 
without detection, including within their numbers so celebrated a nat- 
uralist as Pennant. But it may be considered as very doubtful whether 
this be any thing more than a variety. The same fish appears to 
have been noticed by Dr. Mitchill, in his paper on the fishes of New 
York, as the M. callarias, (Lin.) The remarks of Dr. Storer prove 
very clearly that it is not the European callarias ; but it is doubtful 
whether Richardson’s remark on Mitchill’s, “that it is probably a 
distinct species,” meant any thing more than that it was distinct from 
the callarias of which he was then speaking. Yarrell, who was evi- 
dently acquainted with Mitchill’s description, considered it to be the 
common cod, as must be inferred from his quoting his words under 
his own n description of Morrhua vulgaris. He also states most ex- 
