GILBERT AND STARKS — FISHES OF PANAMA BAY 111 



208. Orthopristis brevipinnis {Skindachner). 



Plate XV, Fig. 30. 



Four specimens, from 28 to 31 em. loug, were obtained by us in tbe Panama 

 market; no others were seen. 



Tbe species has been made tbe type of a distinct genus {hnciella Jordan & 

 Feslcr), dift'ering from Orthopi-lsiis in tbe presence of accessory scales, from Micro- 

 lepidotus in the larger scales, the presence of accessory scales on the bases of tbe 

 larger ones, and tbe shorter spinous dorsal. A re-examination of Microlepidotus 

 inornnttis (Magdalena Bay, Albatross collection) shows however that tbe scales have 

 been incorrectly enumerated in that species. They are in reality of the same size 

 as tbe scales in brevipinnis, there being GO in tbe lateral line. There are furthermore 

 numerous small accessory scales on the bases of the larger ones. The dorsal and 

 anal are scaled in i)iornntii.s, almost as fully as in hreviinnnis. Tbe two species are 

 vcr}' closely related, diflfering principally in tbe relative sizes of the two dorsal fins. 

 This difference is not greater than that occurring between species of Pomadasis or 

 Anisotremus, and seems not worthy of generic recognition. In one specimen of 

 0. inornaius from Mazatlan, we find 15 dorsal spines. The only character to separate 

 the two species as a generic group {Microlepidotus) distinct from Orthopristis, is tbe 

 possession of the small accessory scales on tbe sides. This character appears also in 

 Brachydeuterus, where elongatus and axillaris possess it highly developed, while 

 nitidus and corvinceforniis are without it. We have no indication of tbe condition in 

 tbe type of Brachydeuterus [aaritus). Should tbe latter have no accessory scales, 

 tbe subordinate group consisting of ehngatm and axillaris would be without distinct- 

 ive name. We have preferred to reduce Microlepidotus to the rank of a subgenus, of 

 equal value with Evapristis, which forms a transition between it and tbe ordinary 

 forms of Orthopristis with naked fins and no accessory scales. 



Steindachner's description of the type of brevipinnis (1870«, p. 10, PI. V) 

 refers unquestionably to the present species, but the accompanying figure is so poor 

 and inaccurate as to suggest a very different fish. Prominent among tbe unfortunate 

 features in this drawing are: tbe upper contour, which should be evenly curved from 

 snout to caudal peduncle; tbe dorsal sjiines, which should be longer and slenderer; the 

 soft dorsal, which is much more completely scaled; tbe streaks above tbe lateral line, 

 which are mucli less oblique, much wider, more irregular anti wavy, and less 

 numerous; tbe series of scales below tbe lateral line, witli their accompanying 

 streaks, which should be horizontal, instead of oblique. 



The usual fin formula is: dorsal XIII, 17; anal III, 13 or 14. The third 

 dorsal spine is tbe longest, 2| to 2^ in the length of tbe bead. Tbe lateral line con- 

 tains 60 to 62 tubes. 



The scales in tbe species of Orthopristis are more nearly uniform in size than 

 current descriptions would seem to indicate. 0. forbesi, from Albemarle Island, 

 Galapagos Group, is said to have 80 to 85 series of scales. Examination of one of 

 the types makes it evident that tbe vertical rows were counted, instead of tbe 

 oblique rows. Tbe number of oblique rows corresponding to the pores in the lateral 

 line is 65. 



