332 Zoological Society :— 
S. favidus. The “emarginated caudal” is a feature so slightly marked 
at the best, and disappears so gradually from one species to another, 
as to be of very little value. It is greatest in S. paucispinis and S. 
elongatus, and becomes less through S. ovalis, 8. flavidus, S. mela- 
nops, S. rosaceus, and S. helvomaculatus; in S. ruber and S. auri- 
culatus the fin is about even, and in S. nebulosus and 8. nigrocinctus 
it is slightly rounded. The ‘‘ protuberant lower jaw” and its “‘sym- 
physial swelling beneath” are of greater value as generic features ; 
they are common to five of our species. These five have the lower 
jaw (which is knobbed at its extremity) continuing nearly the line 
of extension of the top of the head; in these five the top of the 
head is smooth and unarmed. In the remaining six species the two 
jaws are but little unequal, and the lower is blunt and does not con- 
tinue the line of extension of the top of the head; ifthese six the 
top of the head is strongly ridged and spinous. But when we look 
at the species of other waters, we find that the relative development 
of the jaws can scarcely hold such rank as our groups here would 
seem to indicate. Sebastes viviparus, for instance, with the surface 
of the head very rough and spinous, has the knobbed projection of 
the lower jaw strikingly developed. The “ minute scales” belong 
only to S. paucispinis. It does not seem possible, therefore, that 
Sebastodes can be retained with such limits as were assigned to it 
by Mr. Gill. 
Let us now turn to his definition of Sebastichthys. He assigns 
as its characters “eleven to twelve (XI.+I.—XII.+I.) spines in 
the first dorsal fin, palatine teeth, and the physiognomy of Sebastes 
(norvegicus). But all of our species, S. paucispinis included, have 
the same number of spines in the first dorsal fin—thirteen, or, if a 
division is preferred, XII.+I.; and all are furnished with teeth 
on the palatines. Neither can the ‘“‘ physiognomy”’ be deemed of 
value, inasmuch as forms so very unlike are here gathered into one 
group: the rough, blunt-headed S. nigrocinctus has little kindred in 
features to the smooth, sharp-nosed S.melanops. And as S.norvegicus 
itself is provided with palatine teeth, the only character remaining 
to separate Sebastichthys is the number of first dorsal spines. This, 
unsupported, does not appear sufficient. 
The divisions of our Californian species, therefore, which have 
been proposed by Mr. Gill I cannot adopt, though one of his names 
may be retained with a different limitation. i ‘ 
Of the two groups which, as before stated, I find to exist in our 
waters, one has the top of the head rough, the other has it smooth. 
The former I refer without hesitation to the genus of which the 
common species of Massachusetts Bay, S. viviparus, is a member ; 
and, since Cuvier in his original diagnosis separates Sebastes from 
Scorpena in consequence of the absence of fleshy filaments on the 
head, it seems most natural in making a division of his genus that the 
name Sebastes should be retained for those which, lke Scorpena, 
have the top of the head rough with ridges; and I propose thus to 
restrict it. For the other group (those with the head smooth) a 
distinct generic name is needed ; and since the appellation Sebastodes 
