Miscellaneous. 349 



The result of our examination leads us to suspect that possibly 

 Saurus foetens and S. Jucioceiis may prove identical, as some of the 

 characters which distinguished the young specimen of the latter 

 (6 inches long), described by Dr. Ayres, from the former species 

 disappear in the larger one now brought under our notice. 



Dr. Ayres states that the lower jaw is the longer ; but his type 

 has the lower jaw somewhat shorter than the upper, as has also 

 the large specimen. 



The interorbital space in the young specimen is equal to the 

 longitudinal diameter of the eye ; but in the large individual, owing 

 chiefly to the greater development of the upper orbital margin, 

 the interorbital space is equal to once and a half the longitudinal 

 orbital diameter. The proportion of the head to the body in both 

 specimens is about as two to nine ; and the fin-rays in both agree with 

 Ayres's description. 



The only characteristics which still lead us to doubt the identity 

 of S. foetens with S. Jucioceps are the proportion of the head to the 

 body, and the number of the scales in the lateral line, which in 

 the large specimen is not less than 75, instead of 65 as in S. 

 foetens. 



Probably the shortness of the lower jaw is caused by contraction 

 in alcohol. Dr. Ayres always purchased and described fishes in 

 their fresh condition ; and doubtless the lower jaw, now the shorter, 

 was slightly the longer when he described it. 



The donor of the specimen, Dr. Trask, states that the fish is scarce, 

 and that in 1873 it appeared off this coast, but the individuals were 

 no larger than a sardine. 



Length to tip of caudal fin 1 ft. 5| in. ; width of interorbital space 

 1 in. ; from tip of snout to eye l|in. ; longitudinal diameter of 

 orbit f in., ditto to first dorsal 6^ in., ditto to pectorals 3|-in. 



Locality. Santa Cruz. 



San Francisco, Aug. 21, 1878. 



On the Causes of the Buzzing of Insects. 

 By M. J. Perez. 



Since the experiments of Chabrier, Burmeister, Landois, &c., the 

 buzzing of insects is attributed to the vibrations of the air rubbing 

 against the margins of the stigmatic orifices of the thorax under the 

 action of the motory muscles of the wings. The latter organs are 

 considered only to play a minimum part by modifying more or less 

 the sounds produced by the respiratory orifices. I have repeated 

 all the experiments of the above authors, and have not always 

 arrived at the results announced by them, or I have thought that I 

 could put upon them an interpretation difi'erent from theirs. 



1. It is quite true that, by sticking together the wings of a fly 

 {Sarcophaga carnaria), as Chabrier did, we do not prevent the sound 

 from being produced, but not that the wings can thus be kept in 

 a state of complete immobility. The flexibility of these organs 



