LL. Agassiz on Fishes of the Tennessee River. 299 
faded in the specimens. sent by Dr. Newman, from Huntsville. 
Not -haviug however specimens from the locality quoted by Rafin- 
esque, [ must leave it for further investigations to determine 
beyond any doubt their specific identity or difference. Centrar- 
chus hexacanthus, Cuv. and Val., belongs unquestionably to this 
genus, : 
4. Ametoruites, Rafin.—This is another of the natural genera 
established by Rafinesque for one of the many distinct types com- 
ined by Cuvier and Valenciennes under the name of Centrar- 
chus. The well known Centrarchus @neus may be considered 
_ Ones by the structure of its dorsal and anal fins. The spinous 
portion of the dorsal is much longer than the posterior soft por- 
tion of that fin and scarcely half its height, causing a marked 
depression to appear between the spinons and the articulated rays. 
The same is the case with the anal, which is also long ; but low 
I its anterior spinous portion. The general form of these fishes 
1s oval, and the body less compressed than in the preceding genera. 
he species from the Tennessee River agrees in every respect 
With Rafinesque’s Ambloplites ichtheloides. It is called at Hunts- 
ville Goggle-eyed or Black Perch. In adopting the genus Am- 
bloplites and referring this species to it with Rafinesque’s authority 
Thave acted with that discretion due to an author who labored 
under the greatest difficulties when prepariug his work upon the 
fishes of the Ohio. It is tree he himself describes this species 
as Lepomis ichtheloides; but he also suggests the desirableness of 
distinguishing it generically and proposes a new name for the 
genus, should it be admissible. Finding it to be so, Ido not 
hesitate in giving him the fullest credit for his suggestion, even 
though I must add that he has described another variety of the 
same species under the name of Ichthelis erythrops. 1 have 
found both these varieties among the fishes sent to me by Dr. 
Newman and I have no hesitation in considering them as spe- 
Cifically identical with one another and as agreeing fully with 
Rafinesque’s descriptions. Should naturalists be more generally 
Melined to correct simply what they consider as errors in their 
Predecessors instead of discarding altogether what they can not 
at once determine, we should have much fewer of those nominal 
Species in our descriptive works, which are the curse of our sci- 
entific nomenclature. Ambloplites ichtheloides is much stouter 
and more elongated than Ambl. eneus ; body less compressed 
above ; face broader, lower jaw less prominent, and strongly 
arched from side to side; mouth opens less obliquely upwards; 
‘pious rays of dorsal and anal shorter than in A. eneus; dorsal 
‘pinkled with white spots. | 
i 
oe 
. 
