

4 FISHES OF MASSACHUSETTS. 



which is so perfectly appropriate to the " History" and the " Cata- 

 logue," that I cannot refrain inserting it here :" Faulty catalogues, 

 or even works of a more elaborate kind, if merely compiled from other 

 authors, are utterly worthless." The " Catalogue" was drawn up two 

 years after the " History" was published if, therefore, the following 

 remarks should show numerous and glaring errors to pervade the 

 former, the value of the latter may from it be inferred, 



The catalogue of our fishes in " Hitchcock's Survey" purports to 

 contain 57 genera and 108 species. Of these, I have seen but 33 

 genera, and heard of 4 more, making 37 genera. 



Of the 108 species there detailed, I know of but 29, which are cor- 

 rectly catalogued and in several instances varieties of a fish are 

 registered as species. Thus, the Gadus morrhua, rupestris, and areno- 

 sus, are three species ; and the Labrus tautoga, tautoga fusca, and 

 tautoga alia, are also three species. 



That other species here catalogued may not be yet found in our 

 waters, I will not pretend to assert ; but y when we find here indicated 

 three species of the genus " Scorpaena" which could not have been 

 seen ; and the " Uranoscopus sealer" which Richardson, in his " Fauna 

 Bor eali- Americana" says has not been detected in the Atlantic ocean, 

 we are inclined to believe that many others there noticed will never be 

 found here. 



The report now presented contains 75 genera, specimens of which 

 I have seen. Of these genera, 42 were not noticed in the catalogue, 

 of which I have spoken above. I have here described 107 species, 78 

 of which are not mentioned in that paper. 



In my classification, I have followed the arrangement of Cuvier, as 

 established in the " Regne Animal" 



The generic characters are generally given in the language of Yar- 

 rell. 



All which is most respectfully submitted by 



Your friend and servant, 



D. HUMPHREYS STORER. 



