2 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. Ill 



Genus ALBULA 



This genus differs from Dixonina, the only other genus of the 

 family, chiefly in the last ray of the dorsal and anal being short ; not 

 produced and filamentous as in Dixonina. Other characters are in- 

 cluded in the description of the family. 



ALBULA VULPES (Linnaeus) 



Esox vulpes Linnaeus, 1758, ed. 10, p. 313, Bahama Islands. (Diagnosis, based 



on Vulpes bahamensis Catesby, pre-Linnaeus.) 

 Albiila vulpes Jordan and Evermann, 1896, p. 411, fig. 179 (description; 



synonymy); Meek and Hildebrand, 1923, p. 179 (synonymy; description). 



Head 3.0, 3.4; depth 4.9, 5.0; eye 4.2, 4.0 in head; snout 3.1, 2.8; 

 maxillary 3,0, 2.9; interorbital 5.25, 5.5; caudal peduncle 4.1, 4.0; 

 anal base 4.5, 5.1 ; ventral fin 2.2, 2.3 ; and pectoral fin 6.2, 6.y. D. 17, 

 17; A. 8, 8; P. 16, 17; scales 70, 70; gill rakers 7+11, 9+12. 



Two young adults, 68 and 80 mm. in total and 55 and 64 mm. in 

 standard length are included in the collection. The proportion or 

 enumeration given first in each instance pertains to the larger speci- 

 men. The family and generic characters, together with the data given 

 in the preceding paragraph are sufficient to identify the species. These 

 specimens retain the dark cross bands on the back of the juvenile, 

 which generally disappear at about the length attained by the larger 

 specimen. 



Range. — Reported from nearly all warm seas : On the Pacific 

 coast of America from Monterey Bay, Calif., southward to Panama 

 Bay, and now to northern Peru ; and on the Atlantic from Woods 

 Hole, Mass., to Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. 



Family MURAENIDAE : Moray eels 



PRIODONOPHIS EQUATORIALIS Hildebrand 



Priodonophis eqiiatorialis Hildebrand, 1946, p. 134, fig. 31, Cabo Blanco, Peru 

 ( original description ) . 



A single specimen, 490 mm. in total length, is included in the collec- 

 tion. It, in general, agrees very well with the holotype and a paratype 

 of this species. Minor differences are evident, however, from a com- 

 parison of the specimens. The skin seems to be thinner and smoother 

 in the Talara specimen, which may be the result of different methods 

 of preservation, or possibly of a difference in age, as this specimen 

 is smaller than the type and paratype. One eye in the Talara speci- 

 men definitely is smaller (probably abnormal) than in the type speci- 

 mens, but the other one is larger and just about bridges the gap. 

 There seems to be virtually complete agreement in the size and shape 



