SCIENTIFIC HISTORY OF THF, BLACK BASS. 29 



and South Carolina, and Georgia, no differences could be found 

 much, if any greater, than such as could be detected among numer- 

 ous individuals from any given locality. There are differences result- 

 ing from age and condition ; the fins may be (slightly) more or Jess 

 developed, and the colors may be more or less intense, but no devia- 

 tions have been found, from the ordinary standard, of such a charac- 

 ter as at all to compare, for example, with the differences between the 

 large-mouthed and small-mouthed forms, or to indicate that there 

 are any specific differences among the small-mouthed or large-mouthed 

 forms. The natural course, then, appears to be to recognize only the 

 two forms whose differences are so obvious as species, and at least 

 till differences may be detected, of which none have yet been found 

 to consider all the other forms, and from all localities, however dis- 

 tant they may be, as representatives or varieties of those species. 



SECTION 2. NOMENCLATURE. 



A critical analysis of the numerous notices and descriptions of 

 the forms of the genus indicates that the differences between the 

 respective species have been very imperfectly apprehended, and 

 mostly confined to the size of the mouth and in vague terms to the 

 size (comparatively large or small) of the scales: most of the other 

 differences signalized are either non-existent or individual and* de- 

 pendent on the condition of the specimens. The charge of vague- 

 ness and insufficiency of diagnosis is especially applicable to the 

 first descriptions of species of the genus; guided, however, by a 

 knowledge of the geographical distribution of the genus and hints 

 furnished by the radial formulas, etc., it may be safely concluded, 



(1) that most of the names referred to in the historical introduction 

 may be relegated to the synonymy of the small-mouthed species; 



(2) that the first name applied to that species was Labrus salmoides ; 



(3) that only the names Huro nigricans, (and most of its derivatives), 

 Grystes megastoma, Grystes nobilis, and Dioplites nuecensis belong 

 to the large-mouthed species ; (4) that the name nigricans is there- 

 fore the first specific term applicable to it ; (5) that the name Micro- 

 pterus was the first applied to the genus; and (6) that therefore, if we 

 only take into consideration the priority of the names (irrespective 

 of the applicability or erroneousnessof the description), and combine 

 the first specific names applied to the respective species with the first 



