304 Mr. P. Schmidt on the 



teeth are still more enlarged and the series on each side 

 describes a strong curve with its convex side toward the 

 median line." In Hippoglossoides dubius, after my descrip- 

 tion (Schmidt, 1904, p. 227), " the teeth are sharp, conical, 

 somewhat directed inward, in a single row; on the anterior 

 part of premaxillary 6 teeth of middle size and behind 

 them on each side a group of 2-3 large canines ; on the 

 posterior part are smaller teeth ; in the lower jaw are 4 

 canines on the symphysis." In Hippoglossoides katakurce, 

 after Snyder (1911, p. 546), " teeth are small, slender, in a 

 single row on the symphysis, where they are irregularly- 

 placed, enlarged, and somewhat canine-like." 



Comparing all these descriptions, we see that the teeth of 

 the five species of Hippoglossoides are of the same general 

 structure. They have all on the anterior part of the upper 

 jaws and on the symphysis of the lower jaw some enlarged, 

 curved, canine-like teeth, directed backward and set not so 

 close as other small conical teeth. 



The scales and their distribution are nearly identical in the 

 five species; nor do other morphological features give diffe- 

 rences sufficient for specific separation. 



This preliminary comparison of diagnoses has convinced 

 me that the five Pacific forms of Hippoglossoides cannot be 

 regarded as well-defined species. Two of them — Hippo- 

 glossoides haniiltoni and H. katakurce — I believe to be synonyms 

 of Hippoglossoides robustus and H. elassodon. It is really 

 impossible to find in what Hippoglossoides haniiltoni differs . 

 from //. robustus. The differences of four rays in the dorsal 

 and anal and of four pores in the lateral line is too insignifi- 

 cant, considering the high degree of variation of the fin-rays 

 and pores in Hippoglossoides (cf. Table II., p. 303) . Jordan & 

 Evennann give as distinctive the length of the pectoral — ^ the 

 length of head ( = 13*8 °/ of total length) in Hippoglossoides 

 robustus and § length of head ( = 16'3 °/ of total length) in 

 H. haniiltoni. But if we take into consideration that the 

 specimen of H. robustus was 318 mm. long and the specimen 

 of H. haniiltoni only 170 mm., and that, in general, younger 

 forms have compaiatively longer pectorals and caudals, we 

 shall understand that this difference cannot be regarded as 

 sufficient for separation. The wider interorbital space, the 

 smaller symphysial knob, the larger nasal tubes of Hippo- 

 glossoides haniiltoni are also features connected with youth, 

 and the roughness of the scales and the form of the anterior 

 part of the lateral line is highly variable in Hippoglossoides. 

 In the same manner it is impossible to distinguish Hippo- 

 glossoides katakurw from H. elassodon. The depth of the 



