REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES. 177 
The habit of assuming that the popular names were correctly applied 
led to other curious results. Some of the most abundant of the fishes 
of the state are the cyprinodonts, known as minnows, and the sun-fish 
called also bream and roach. The cyprinodonts and sun-fish do not 
appear at all in their proper persons in the ‘‘ Natural History;” the 
only mention of any minnow is under the head of ‘‘minnow, Cyprinus 
atronasus,” the names of ** bream, Abramis chrysoptera,” ‘‘roach, Leu- 
ciscus rutilus,” and ‘*dace, or dare, Leuciscus vulgaris,” are found, but 
only in connection with the European fishes, which, it scarcely need 
be added, are not American fishes. 
Still another kind of error is found in statements respecting distri- 
bution. As we all know, the shad was introduced into the waters of 
the Pacific slope by the United States Fish Commission because it was 
supposed none were there. According to Smith, however, ‘‘on the 
northwest coast of America, they are inconceivably numerous!” 
The examples thus given are quite enough to illustrate some of the 
kinds of errors Smith fell into. 
The only item of new or special interest found in the entire volume 
is not from the pen of Smith, but of a correspondent, Jas. P. 
Couthuoy, captain of a merchant vessel, who later became known as 
an able conchologist and accompanied Captain Wilkes in his celebrated 
voyage around the world. Ina postscript toa general letter published 
in the article on the mackerel, Couthuoy added, ‘‘though you are 
already, perhaps, aware of it, * * * the male dolphin may be easily 
distinguished from the female in the water by the shape of the head; 
that of the former being abrupt and almost perpendicular, * * * - 
while the female’s is more rounded.” This statement, written in Jan- 
uary, 1832, and published in 1833, anticipated by five years the dis- 
covery of M. Dussumier, announced in the ‘‘avertissement” (p. vii) 
to the twelfth volume of Cuvier and Valenciennes’ ‘‘ Histoire Naturelle 
des Poissons” (1837). In view of our knowledge of Smith’s character, 
the suggestion that he was aware of such a fact sounds quite ironical. 
No ichthyologist has recognized the claim of Couthuoy to the dis- 
covery in question. 
Smith’s wretched book misled many of the anglers of the middle of 
the past century; frequent evidences are to be found of his influence 
in the principal works (Brown’s American Angler’s Guide and Her- 
bert’s Frank Forrester’s Fish and Fishing of the United States) which 
served as guides to the fishermen of that time; even so able an 
ichthyologist as Sir John Richardson quoted it and was evidently 
much puzzled by it. 
VE 
The next author whose work demands examination was a man of 
uite a different character from Smith, and who, for nearly three 
»} b) 
decades, published the results of studies of the fishes of Massachusetts. 
F. ©. 190412 
