﻿Description 
  of 
  the 
  Selene 
  Argentea 
  ofLacepkle, 
  Sfc. 
  69 
  

  

  The 
  true 
  SeVene 
  argentSe, 
  as 
  figured 
  by 
  Plumier, 
  and 
  de- 
  

   scribed 
  by 
  Lac^p^de, 
  differs 
  in 
  many 
  essential 
  points 
  from 
  the 
  

   A. 
  Vomer, 
  and 
  other 
  species 
  of 
  that 
  genus. 
  The 
  accompany- 
  

   ing 
  description 
  was 
  made 
  from 
  three 
  fine 
  specimens, 
  one 
  of 
  

   which 
  was 
  procured 
  perfectly 
  fresh 
  from 
  the 
  south 
  shore 
  of 
  

   Long-Island, 
  near 
  the 
  city. 
  This 
  last 
  specimen 
  drew 
  atten- 
  

   tion°from 
  its 
  large 
  size 
  and 
  apparently 
  new 
  characters 
  ; 
  and 
  

   two 
  others, 
  in 
  spirits 
  and 
  without 
  labels, 
  were 
  found 
  in 
  the 
  

   collections 
  of 
  the 
  Society, 
  which 
  had 
  been 
  there 
  for 
  many 
  

   years, 
  but 
  which 
  had 
  been 
  left 
  unnoticed, 
  probably 
  under 
  the 
  

   supposition 
  that 
  the 
  specimens 
  were 
  from 
  distant 
  parts. 
  Its 
  

   large 
  size 
  alone 
  would 
  have 
  enlisted 
  Cuvier's 
  attention, 
  whence 
  

   I 
  conclude 
  that 
  no 
  specimens 
  of 
  it 
  exist 
  in 
  the 
  cabinets 
  of 
  

  

  Paris. 
  

  

  The 
  figure 
  of 
  it, 
  as 
  given 
  by 
  Lacep^de, 
  and 
  his 
  general 
  de- 
  

   scription, 
  were 
  no 
  doubt 
  insufficient 
  data 
  for 
  the 
  establishment 
  

   of 
  a 
  new 
  species 
  ; 
  but 
  the 
  remarkable 
  prolongation 
  of 
  the 
  

   second 
  dorsal 
  in 
  his 
  figure 
  might 
  have 
  led 
  to 
  a 
  doubt 
  as 
  to 
  the 
  

   propriety 
  of 
  classing 
  it 
  with 
  A. 
  Vomer. 
  With 
  specimens 
  in 
  

   hand, 
  however, 
  enough 
  can 
  be 
  gathered 
  from 
  Lacepfede's 
  de- 
  

   scription 
  to 
  serve 
  in 
  identifying 
  the 
  " 
  lost 
  species:' 
  Plumier 
  

   was 
  a 
  close 
  observer 
  of 
  nature, 
  and 
  has 
  not 
  often 
  led 
  natural- 
  

   ists 
  astray. 
  

  

  Ko 
  doubt 
  Cuvier 
  is 
  right 
  in 
  calling 
  the 
  figure 
  of 
  Prince 
  

   Maurice 
  (1st 
  part, 
  p. 
  399) 
  and 
  of 
  Mentzel 
  (p. 
  31) 
  defective, 
  

   either 
  because 
  the 
  original 
  ivas 
  mutilated, 
  or 
  the 
  draughtsman 
  

   careless 
  ; 
  but 
  this 
  is 
  certainly 
  not 
  the 
  case 
  with 
  Plumier's 
  

   figure. 
  That 
  the 
  fishermen 
  confound 
  it 
  with 
  the 
  A. 
  Vomer 
  is 
  

   very 
  probable. 
  Neither 
  can 
  I 
  account 
  for 
  its 
  omission 
  by 
  Dr. 
  

   Dekay, 
  in 
  his 
  Natural 
  History 
  of 
  the 
  Fish 
  of 
  New- 
  York, 
  unless 
  

   on 
  the 
  ground 
  that 
  the 
  specimens 
  in 
  the 
  cabinet 
  of 
  the 
  Lyceum, 
  

   not 
  being 
  labeled 
  as 
  to 
  locality, 
  he 
  had 
  supposed 
  the 
  species 
  to 
  

   be 
  extralimital. 
  

  

  The 
  figure 
  herewith 
  given 
  is 
  of 
  full 
  size, 
  in 
  order 
  to 
  show 
  

   5 
  

  

  