HISTORY OF THE FISHES OF MASSACHUSETTS. 139 



shows his specimen to have been an imperfect one. I have seen no specimen in which 

 the jaws were of equal length ; the lower jaw was undoubtedly broken in the specimen 

 seen by Lesueur, as is very apt to be the case in dried specimens of this genus, else he 

 could not have called it ' equirostrum '; still, as some naturalists think a specific name 

 need not point out any particular character, and as I have no desire to detract from the 

 labors of another, I shall merely point out the characters as they exist in the recent speci- 

 men, and leave Lesueur's name to be changed, should it ever be thought advisable, by 

 some succeeding ichthyologist." In 1842, Dekay published his " Zoology of New York." 

 In his volume on the Ichthyology of that State, while describing this species, he says : 

 " The original notice of this species by Lesueur was made from an imperfect and dried 

 cabinet specimen ; and his name, of very dubious Latinity, and drawn from a false char- 

 acter, must be rejected. The name which I have attached to it is due to the distin- 

 guished ichthyologist Avho pointed out distinctly the impropriety of the appellation, and 

 was its first accurate describer." Dr. Dekay having thus agreed with me in the opinion 

 of the " impropriety " of Lesueur's specific name, I did not hesitate to adopt the one 

 he proposed, in my " Synopsis of the Fishes of North America," published in 1846, 

 however much I may have desired that it should be a different one. Valenciennes, 

 in the eighteenth volume of his " Histoire Naturelle des Poissons," insists upon retain- 

 ing Lesueur's name of " equirostrum," — because, having received a specimen of Scorn- 

 beresox from Chili, and compared it with Lesueur's figure, he says " it is impossible to 

 doubt their specific identity." He thinks, if any differences are noticeable in Lesueur's 

 description from the Chilian fish, that they are referable to the fact that that description 

 was made from a dried specimen. Now what are the facts 1 Lesueur's description was 

 not accompanied by a figure. He himself was aware that his specimen was imper- 

 fect, and that his account could " not be regarded as sufficiently complete." Valen- 

 ciennes seems to have forgotten that the most likely accident to happen to a dried 

 specimen of this species is a fracture of the lower jaw ; that it is a rare thing to 

 find a specimen, thus preserved, perfect in this respect ; and if he refers to his description 

 of the Southern fish, he will notice the caudal fin contains twenty-seven rays, while in 

 the descriptions of Lesueur, Dekay, and my own, there are uniformly twenty rays in 

 that fin. Unconvinced that Dekay and myself are in error, I cannot yield my convic- 

 tions to the authority of the justly celebrated French ichthyologist. 



Newfoundland, Lesueur. Massachusetts, Storer. New York, Dekay. 



VOL. VI. NEW SERIES. 26 



