The Spotted Eagle Ray. 259 



to be found only after close search. So nearly invisible are they that my 

 first specimen, examined while alive and in brilliant sunshine, showed no 

 traces of them. Some hours later, when this fish was brought to the labor- 

 atory and compared with Jordan and Evermann's figure, despite its agree- 

 ment with the characters given on pp. 87 and 88 of vol. i of their "Fishes of 

 North and Middle America," I thought it to be a new species; and it was 

 not until Mr. Henry D. Aller, director of the Laboratory, pointed out the 

 very faint striations, that I was convinced to the contrary. It is significant 

 that Jordan and Evermann make no reference whatever in their text to such 

 lines. The photograph (fig. i, plate i), made from my fresh fish, shows that 

 they are too indistinct to affect a sensitized plate, even when exposed 60 

 seconds. Attention may be called here to the sharpness of focus in this 

 photograph, as even the fin rays are shown with marked clearness. 



Although the question of the presence or absence of lines on the dorsum 

 of this fish will be taken up at length later, it does not seem out of place 

 here to refer to Abbeville's (1614) Narinnary with its back "all striped of 

 black and white." Save for De Laet's (1633) quotation of Abbeville, no 

 writer has referred to these stripes until Smith (1907) wrote: "Color above 

 brown, with numerous small, round, pale spots, and transverse dark lines." 



With reference to the fins, another difference between Jordan and Ever- 

 mann's figure and my photograph should be pointed out. In the former 

 the rays at the angles of the pectorals and on their hinder edges are very 

 prominent. Since the drawing is from an alcoholic specimen, this must be 

 due to the macerating action of the alcohol. In the photograph, which was 

 made from a fresh specimen (dead an hour), such rays are visible only in 

 the ventrals, the posterior edges of the pectorals are finely scalloped, as 

 first noted by Russell (1803), but first shown in the painting in the Royal 

 Library of Berlin and here reproduced as figure 3, plate 11. Since particular 

 attention will be given to the head and snout in the section bearing that 

 title, nothing more will be done here than to call attention to the fact that 

 the head is too light in color and too prominent. The spiracles are too 

 marked, the eyes are too prominent and placed too high on the sides of the 

 head, while the snout is too short and too blunt. 



Figure 2, plate i, is a photograph of the ventral surface of the fish pre- 

 viously described, and, with the exception of Jordan and Evermann's and 

 Coles's (1913) figures herein reproduced, is the only one known to the writer. 

 Leaving out of further account the various general features already spoken 

 of, in comparing the two figures, no essential differences are noticeable save 

 in the head. 



The snout in the photograph shows to better advantage than in the 

 dorsal view, since it is in the ventral plane of the body. That in Jordan and 

 Evermann's figure is plainly too short and rounded. The mouth is too 

 squarely cut, the lower lip especially so. In the photograph the nasal 

 flaps are longer and fit more closely in the corners of the mouth. Still 

 more marked is the sharper angle of the point of the lower jaw and its 



