180 REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES. 
tern. The families were not defined, and in this respect Yarrell was 
still the exemplar. Yarrell was not followed, however, in the style of 
synonymy, which was often quite misleading. For example, under 
the caption Pleprilus| triacanthus, Peck (p. 60), are references to (1) 
‘*Memoirs of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, v. Lap: 
48, et fig.;” (2) ‘* Mitchell, Trans. Lit. et [sic!] Philosoph. Soe. N 1. York, 
p. 365, et fig.;” and (3) uaa et Valenc. Hist. Nat. des Poiss.” in 
not one of those works does the name ‘*/?. triacunthus” appear. 
Peck (in the Memoirs) called the species Stromateus triacanthus, 
Mitchill (not Mitchell” named it Stromateus eryptosus, and for Cuvier 
and Valenciennes (ix, p. 408) it was Rhombus cryptosus. Many of the 
references to pages are also erroneous. 
The slight knowledge Storer had of fishes generally entailed on him 
descriptions deficient in aptness and the element of comparability, 
and, in a few cases, they were obviously erroneous.’ ‘* For many 
years,” however, according to his obituarian biographer, ‘‘it [the 
Report] was the standard work on our fishes and was only supplanted 
in New England esteem by the revised, extended, and fully illustrated 
work completed in 1867.” 
The History is really an amplified edition of the Report with some 
of the species that had been discovered in the meanwhile incorporated, 
and with plates illustrating all the species described in it but one, the 
so-called Blennius subbifurcatus, which is a typical sticheid. The 
principal contributor of new material for the History was a master of 
a fishing vessel, Capt. Nathaniel EK. Atwood, of Provincetown, who had 
acquired considerable knowledge of fishes generally and communicated 
some interesting notes on habits to the Proceedings of the Boston 
Society of Natural History. 
Storer claims to have ‘* carefully redescribed all the species” for his 
History, and it has been declared by an eulogist that ‘*it would be 
dificult to point out a work of greater accuracy in detail.” Conse- 
quently it has been proclaimed to be ‘‘a classic in North American 
ichthyology that must serve as a basis for the future histories of the 
New England fishes.” Naturally such a work calls for examination. 
If some ee ay shall be omnes to exist between the e estimate of 
a Mitchil’ s name was AR ERE spelled Mite shell by Storer in his Report; he conertean itin Tene papers 
and in his History. 
bOne new genus and 10 nominal new species were described in the Report, 4 of which are 
recognized at the present time. The 4 of acknowledged validity are indicated in the following list 
by italics: 
Cryptacanthodes (n.g.) maculatus, Storer (p. 28). 
Pholis subbifurcatus (p. 63)= Eumesogrammus subbifurcatus (Storer). 
Leuciscus argenteus (p. 90) =Semotilus corporalis (Mitchill, 1817). 
Leuciscus pulchellus (p. 91)=Semotilus corporalis. 
Morrhua americana (p. 120) =Gadus callarias Linneus, 1758, 
Platessa ferruginea (p. 121) =Limanda ferruginea, Storer. 
Echeneis quatuordecimlaminatus (p. 155)=Remora brachyptera (Lowe, 1839). 
Syngnathus fuscus (p. 162) =Siphostoma fuseum, Storer. 
Syngnathus peckianus (p. 163) =Siphostoma fiscum: Storer. 
Monocanthus massachusettensis (p. 174)=Monacanthus hispidus (Linnzeus, 1758). 
