REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES. 171 
of Linnzus; the second received a new name, Stromateus triacanthus; 
the third also has a new name, Blennius anguillaris, and the fourth 
was considered to be specifically identical with the Cyprinus catostomus 
of Forster. Peck’s descriptions were very good—for the time at 
least—and by them his species can readily be recognized. 
The first is clearly the species later (1839) aed Cryptacanthodes 
maculatus by Storer; Peck’s misidentification undoubtedly was very 
bad, but he manifested a better appreciation of the relationship of the 
species than did Storer. The Ophidion or Ophidium tmberbe of Lin- 
neus was primarily based on the common gunnell of Europe, Pholis 
gurnellus. “« Apt as Peck’s description was, however, Storer did not 
recognize his fish. Dekay later (1842) equally failed to recognize it, 
but, oeoadins that it age not be the Ophidium tmberbe of Lin- 
neus, referred it to the genus Mierasfer and calls it ‘*/verasfer 
borealis?” The name was new, and by the interrogation Dekay evi- 
dently intended to question whether the species belonged to the genus 
Fierasfer and not whether it belonged toa species already named /eras- 
Ser borealis. The correct identification of the species was not publishec 
till 1863 (Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila., p. 332). 
Peck’s second species is the one now known as Stromateus triacan- 
thus or Poronotus triacanthus; his third species is Zoarces anguillaris, 
and his Cyprinus catostomus is Catostomus commersonid, the common 
sucker of Massachusetts. 
IY. 
In 1816 the United States was visited by a Frenchman who is weil 
entitled to be considered as the first ichthyological artist of his time— 
so far superior to all others, indeed, that there was no close second.’ 
I mean, of course, Charles Alexandre Lesueur,’ who was born in 
Havre on the New Year’s day of 1778. He became the companion of 
Francois Peron in the notable expedition to southern lands which left 
Havre in 1800, under the command of Baudin, and was so fruitful of 
novelties for science. In 1815 he made arrangements with William 
Maclure by which he was enabled to visit the United States. After 
a prolonged voyage by way of the West Indies with Maclure, Lesueur 
aThe Ophidion imberbe was long a puzzle to European naturalists and the last authoritative author 
* to adopt the name (A. Giinther) applied it to a nominal species called Gymnelis imberbis and con- 
founded under it names belonging not only to Pholis gunnellus, but also others belonging to Fierasfer 
and the common eel (Anguilla). Thereupon the present writer published an article ‘‘On the affini- 
ties of several doubtful British fishes’? (Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila., 1864, p. 199-208), promulgating 
the views held at present. 
bI am glad to be able to agree for once with William Swainson, who was much more trustworthy 
as an artist and art critic than as an ichthyologist. Swainson (Taxidermy, etec., pp. 244, 245) noticed 
Lesueur as an ‘‘ inimitable painter, accomplished naturalist, and accurate describer,’’ ‘‘the Raffaele of 
zoological painters,” who ‘‘left behind him no one,in France, who was qualified to fill his place, or 
whose delineations foramoment can be compared with hisown.” He regretted that ‘‘no one volume 
will hereafter point out the matchless excellence of LeSueur.’’ 
eIn the first and second voiumes of the Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 
the name appears as LeSueur, but in the third and forth as Lesueur. 
