8 



SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. IO7 



Cliipea menhaden Mitchill, 1815, p. 453, New York (original description; 

 occurrence in New York). 



Clupea neglecta Rafinesque, 1818, p. 206, Long Island, N. Y. (original de- 

 scription). 



Alosa menhaden De Kay, 1842, p. 259, pi. 21, fig. 60 (description; local names; 

 economic importance; occurrence in New York). 



Alosa sadina De Kay (not of Mitchill), 1842, p. 263, pi. 40, fig. 129 (description; 

 figure clearly shows B. tyranmis). 



Clupea carolinensis Gronow, 1854, p. 140, South Carolina (original description). 



Brevoortia menhaden Gill, 1873, p. 811 (common names; range). 



Brevoortia tyranmis Goode, 1878a, p. 5 (a discussion establishing the validity 

 of Latrobe's specific name, tyranmis) ; 1878b, p. 31 (description; compared 

 with "var. aurea," and with " pair onus" ; "varieties" menhaden and aurea 

 recognized, and a new variety, brevicaudata, named and defined) ; 1879, 

 p. 19 (a complete history of the American menhaden; species and varieties 

 discussed; common names; industry fully described). — Jordan and Ever- 

 MANN, 1896, p. 433, and 1900, fig. 195 (description; range; synonymy). 



Fig. I. — Brevoortia tyranmis, based on a specimen 320 mm. in total length, 

 247 mm. in standard length (U.S.N.M. No. 129809), from Chesapeake Bay at 

 Kenwood Beach, Md. 



Validity of the specific name tyrannus. — Although Latrobe did not 

 describe the fish he named Clupea tyrannus, and even though the 

 notes he gave probably apply to Pomolohus pseudoharengus (Wil- 

 son), his figure resembles the menhaden closely. This is true, not- 

 withstanding the fact that it lacks a dorsal fin. The shape certainly 

 is correct for the menhaden, and the dark shoulder spot, constantly 

 present, is correctly indicated. The presence of the isopod, Olencira 

 praegustator, in its mouth, v^^hich Latrobe did describe and figure, 

 offers further proof that he was dealing with the menhaden, for ac- 

 cording to Richardson's "Monograph on the Isopods of North Amer- 

 ica" (1905, p. 231) this crustacean is known to be parasitic only on 

 the menhaden Brevoortia, which apparently still holds true. There 

 seems to be no reason, then, to question the availability of the specific 



1 



