II -GEOGrwVPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF THE GADID/E OR THE 

 COD FAMILY, IN ITS RELATION TO FISHERIES AND COx^I- 

 MERCE. 



By Karl Dambeck.* 



A.— CHARACTERISTICS OF THE GADID^. 



Xext to the berriug, the cod is perhaps the best kuown and most im- 

 portaut family of fishes, on account of its extended and very i)rodiictive 

 fisheries and commerce. The study of its characteristics and general 

 distribution, however, is not only interesting to the fisher and business 

 man, but also to the naturalist, on account of their bearing upon the 

 relations existing between currents, temperature, saltness, and depth 

 of the ocean ; the modes of distribution of animal and vegetable life, 

 and many other unsolved jiroblems. According to the careful and re- 

 liable investigations of Dr. Albert Giinther, of the British Museum, the 

 family comprises 22 genera, 60 species, and numerous varieties. Of 

 these, 9 genera, with 41 species and several varieties, are especially im- 

 portant, viz : Gadus, with 19 species ; Merlucius, with 3 ; Phycis, with 

 5; 31olva, with 3; Motella, with 5; Brosmius, with 2; CoucMa, with 3, and 

 Raniceps and Lota, with 1 species each, while the other 13 genera, with 

 their 19 species, are simply connecting and transitional forms in this 

 large series of widely-distributed fish, and are far less numerous in indi- 

 viduals as well as in species. The fertility appears to decrease in the 

 individual in ])roportiou to this multiplicity of genera and species. 

 We may, for instance, find with the ling and the cod three to nine 



* Gaea, 1877, III, pp. 158, 224, 345, 422.— Revised by Taileton H. Bean.— Dambeck's 

 paper is compiled from various sources, some of them antiquated, aud, consequeutly, 

 containing no reference to recent discoveries. Many statements offered as facts art 

 untrue, and otliars doubtful. Some generalizations are made from insufficient data, 

 some are entirely founded on error. After making due allowance for misstatements 

 and conclusions of uncertain value, there still remains much that is interesting. The 

 nomenclature which he accepts differs from that adopted by many American authors, 

 hence a brief synonomy is given : 



Lota vulf/ai-is (maculosa) ^^Lota maculosa, (Le S.) Rich. 



Lota vnlgariii ^=^ Lota maculosa vav. vulgaris, Jeayns. 



Gadus morrkua-oallarms = Gadus morrhwa, L. 



Gadus a'gleJinus^^Melauogrammus ccglcfmus, (L.) Gill. 



Gadus vircHS = I'ollachius carlxnuirius, (L.) Bon. 



Gadus tomcodus^ Microgadus tomcodus, (Walb.) Gill. 



CoucMa argentata=^ Ciliata argentata, (Reinh.) Gill. 



Fhijcis rcgalis^^Urophycis regius,{^ii\h.) Gill. 



Fhycis americanus ^= Phycis chuss, (Walb.) Gill. 



Gadus cali/ornieus = Microgadus proximus, (Grd.) Gill. 



Brosmius vulgaris ^= Brosmius brosmc, (Fabr.) White. 



531 



