GENERAL REMARKS ON FISH. 59 



with sufficient accuracy, for the naturalist to refer it to its 

 family, genus, and species. 



Any description of a fish, is of course rendered more intelli- 

 gible by an accompanying sketch, even if it is rudely done. 

 And if the angler will describe, as accurately as he can, 

 the general outline and form ; the proportions of the length 

 of the head to that of its body (exclusive of the tail) ; its 

 breadth, as compared with its length ; its color, markings, and 

 the course of the lateral line ; the gill-cover and fore gill- 

 cover, whether either or both have scales, and on which they 

 are largest — mentioning also, if the gill-cover has spines on 

 its posterior margin ; the number of branchial rays, fin rays, 

 and spines, also the color of the fins ; the dental arrangement, 

 and then the general local names : he may contribute much 

 that will be interesting to others, while it will be a source 

 of satisfaction to himself. 



Linnffius received his description of American fishes from 

 Dr. Gordon, of South Carolina. Bloch, and Schoef (who 

 was a surgeon in the British army, during the American 

 Eevolution), as well as Catesby, contributed, though meagrely, 

 to our ichthyology. The descriptions of the latter were 

 mostly of the fish of the Caribbean Sea, and our Southern 

 coast. In 1820, Rafinesque, a French naturalist, published at 

 Lexington, Kentucky, an account of the fishes of the Ohio 

 and its tributaries. His nomenclature, as well as his mode of 

 description and classification, differs from that of Cuvier ; his 

 descriptions, generally, are not minute, but some of them are 

 interesting. His work is not illustrated by drawings. Boso 

 gave Lacepede descriptions of some species found in our 

 waters. In 1814, Dr. Mitchil, of New York, entered with 

 some zeal into the work ; and, in periodicals, described more 

 species than had been before noticed. 



In 1836, Dr. Richardson produced his "Fauna Boreali," 



