﻿216 
  PROCEEDINGS 
  OF 
  THE 
  NATIONAL 
  MUSEUM 
  vol.98 
  

  

  collected 
  in 
  other 
  West 
  Indian 
  Islands, 
  it 
  is 
  possible 
  that 
  the 
  place 
  of 
  

   collection 
  was 
  incorrectly 
  stated." 
  Myers 
  (1938, 
  pp. 
  358, 
  360), 
  

   doubted 
  the 
  existence 
  of 
  either 
  antillarum 
  or 
  fonticola 
  in 
  the 
  West 
  

   Indies, 
  pointing 
  out 
  that 
  both 
  were 
  based 
  on 
  old 
  collections, 
  the 
  

   locality 
  data 
  of 
  which 
  are 
  not 
  above 
  suspicion. 
  The 
  present 
  discovery 
  

   definitely 
  reestablishes 
  the 
  occurrence 
  of 
  Fundulus 
  in 
  the 
  West 
  Indies. 
  

   The 
  following 
  letter 
  received 
  by 
  Dr. 
  R. 
  R. 
  Miller 
  from 
  Dr. 
  George 
  

   S. 
  Myers 
  expresses 
  his 
  views 
  regarding 
  Fundulus 
  in 
  the 
  West 
  Indies. 
  

  

  There 
  seems 
  to 
  be 
  no 
  good 
  reason 
  why 
  Fundulus 
  should 
  not 
  be 
  found 
  in 
  the 
  

   West 
  Indies, 
  since 
  several 
  of 
  the 
  species 
  (heteroclitus, 
  grandis, 
  luciae, 
  similis, 
  

   majalis) 
  seem 
  in 
  many 
  places 
  to 
  be 
  as 
  happy 
  in 
  salt 
  water 
  as 
  in 
  fresh. 
  Cypritv- 
  

   odon, 
  which 
  is 
  also 
  partial 
  to 
  salt 
  and 
  inland 
  alkaline 
  waters, 
  has 
  reached 
  Cuba, 
  

   Hispaniola, 
  Jamaica, 
  the 
  Bahamas, 
  and 
  Curagao, 
  and 
  this 
  migration 
  has 
  in 
  part, 
  

   at 
  least, 
  certainly 
  been 
  independent 
  of 
  former 
  land 
  connections. 
  In 
  my 
  paper 
  on 
  

   West 
  Indian 
  Zoogeography 
  (1938, 
  p. 
  345) 
  I 
  pointed 
  out 
  the 
  almost 
  forgotten 
  fact 
  

   that 
  the 
  CJiallenger 
  collected 
  a 
  Fundulus 
  in 
  a 
  pelagic 
  haul 
  made 
  in 
  the 
  mid- 
  

   Atlantic. 
  

  

  Under 
  these 
  circumstances, 
  it 
  seems 
  very 
  strange 
  that 
  the 
  only 
  two 
  records 
  of 
  

   Fundulus 
  in 
  the 
  West 
  Indies 
  are 
  based 
  on 
  old 
  collections 
  the 
  data 
  on 
  which 
  is 
  

   open 
  to 
  suspicion. 
  Fundulus 
  fonticola 
  Cuvier 
  and 
  Valenciennes 
  (1846) 
  was 
  

   based 
  on 
  several 
  specimens 
  supposedly 
  collected 
  in 
  Puerto 
  Rico 
  at 
  a 
  time 
  when 
  

   locality 
  data 
  were 
  seldom 
  given 
  fully, 
  and 
  by 
  a 
  man 
  (Pl^e) 
  whose 
  West 
  Indian 
  

   collections 
  were 
  very 
  frequently 
  mislabelled. 
  When 
  Jordan 
  re-examined 
  the 
  

   types 
  (1887, 
  p. 
  526) 
  he 
  found 
  all 
  of 
  them 
  save 
  the 
  largest 
  to 
  be 
  some 
  sort 
  of 
  

   viviparous 
  poeciliid 
  ; 
  he 
  says 
  "apparently 
  Oanibusia." 
  If 
  they 
  were 
  Gambusia, 
  

   it 
  is 
  certain 
  they 
  did 
  not 
  come 
  from 
  Puerto 
  Rico, 
  and 
  the 
  largest 
  specimen, 
  which 
  

   alone 
  was 
  a 
  Fundulus, 
  probably 
  did 
  not, 
  either. 
  Fowler's 
  F. 
  antillarum, 
  said 
  to 
  

   be 
  from 
  St. 
  Martins, 
  was 
  based 
  on 
  types 
  forming 
  part 
  of 
  the 
  van 
  Rijgersma 
  col- 
  

   lection, 
  which 
  lay 
  about 
  in 
  the 
  Academy 
  of 
  Natural 
  Sciences 
  of 
  Philadelphia 
  for 
  

   many 
  years 
  without 
  being 
  reported 
  on. 
  Other 
  collections 
  that 
  similarly 
  lay 
  

   about 
  for 
  many 
  yeai'S 
  in 
  the 
  Academy, 
  at 
  a 
  time 
  when 
  there 
  was 
  not 
  an 
  active 
  

   iohthyological 
  curator, 
  had 
  the 
  data 
  confused 
  (witness 
  Cope's 
  supposed 
  West 
  

   African 
  Fundulus 
  nisorius, 
  which 
  is 
  nothing 
  but 
  North 
  American 
  heteroclitus), 
  

   and 
  I 
  seriously 
  doubt 
  the 
  locality 
  data 
  of 
  antillarum. 
  I 
  believe 
  that 
  I 
  made 
  an 
  

   attempt 
  at 
  one 
  time 
  to 
  see 
  the 
  types, 
  but 
  I 
  am 
  not 
  sure. 
  At 
  least 
  I 
  know 
  I 
  never 
  

   saw 
  them, 
  and 
  I 
  doubt 
  their 
  real 
  distinctiveness 
  from 
  heteroclitus. 
  

  

  The 
  fact 
  that 
  Rivas 
  has 
  discovered 
  a 
  new 
  Fundulus 
  in 
  Cuba, 
  however, 
  puts 
  

   a 
  different 
  light 
  on 
  antillarum, 
  although 
  I 
  think 
  it 
  has 
  no 
  bearing 
  on 
  fonticola, 
  

   the 
  existence 
  of 
  which 
  in 
  Puerto 
  Rico 
  seems 
  to 
  be 
  definitely 
  disproved 
  by 
  Hilde- 
  

   brand's 
  extensive 
  work 
  on 
  that 
  island. 
  Now 
  that 
  we 
  know 
  that 
  a 
  Fundulus 
  

   exists 
  in 
  Cuba, 
  antillarum 
  becomes 
  slightly 
  less 
  difficult 
  to 
  believe, 
  although 
  little 
  

   of 
  the 
  doubt 
  regarding 
  the 
  data 
  of 
  those 
  old 
  Academy 
  collections 
  is 
  dissipated 
  

   by 
  the 
  Cuban 
  discovery. 
  My 
  principal 
  question 
  is 
  why 
  such 
  an 
  aggressive 
  fish 
  

   as 
  Fundulus, 
  once 
  in 
  the 
  West 
  Indies, 
  has 
  not 
  spread 
  and 
  become 
  as 
  ubiquitous 
  

   as 
  it 
  is 
  along 
  coastal 
  North 
  America. 
  I 
  believe 
  I 
  expressed 
  this 
  same 
  question 
  

   in 
  my 
  1938 
  Smithsonian 
  paper, 
  but 
  an 
  answer 
  occurs 
  to 
  me. 
  Excepting 
  for 
  

   Orestias 
  in 
  Lake 
  Titicaca, 
  the 
  genus 
  Fuyiduhis 
  inhabits 
  colder 
  water 
  than 
  any 
  

   other 
  genus 
  of 
  the 
  family, 
  and 
  it 
  scarcely 
  enters 
  the 
  tropics 
  at 
  all. 
  On 
  the 
  Pacific 
  

   coast 
  it 
  reaches 
  only 
  to 
  central 
  Baja 
  California, 
  and 
  on 
  the 
  Atlantic 
  only 
  to 
  

   Yucatan. 
  More 
  southerly 
  records 
  are 
  myths, 
  or 
  are 
  based 
  on 
  Profundvlus 
  or 
  

   other 
  genera. 
  Hubbs 
  has 
  shown 
  the 
  Cape 
  San 
  Lucas 
  species 
  to 
  be 
  nonexistent. 
  

  

  