580 



PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM. 



VOL. 41. 



similar size, a deeper preorbital, longer snout (?), and in the supra- 

 occipital crest, which is thickened by hyperostosis in the same region 

 as in Evynnis cardinalis. The following table gives a comparison of 

 Pagrosomus major, P. auratus, and the type of Pagrus arthurius: 



Body length mm 



Headi 



Depth 



Eye 



Preorbital depth 



Snout 



Maxillary 



Height of fourth dorsal spine 



Heif,'ht of second anal spine 



Dorsal rays 



Anal rays 



Scales in lateral line 



Scales in transverse series 



Gill-rakers 



"Pagroso- 

 mus major," 

 Tokyo. 



195 



31.5 



42.5 



8.5 



7.5 



14.5 



12.0 



14.5 



10.0 



XII, 10 



111,8 



57 



8/17 



7+9 



"Pagrus ar- 

 thurius," 

 Port Arthur. 



252 



32. 



44.0 



8.5 



7.5 



14.5 



13.0 



14.0 



10.5 



XII, 10 



111,8 



55 



8/17 



8+9 



"Pagroso- 

 mus 

 auratus," 

 Australia. 



220 

 34.0 

 44.0 



9.5 



9.0 



16.0 



13.0 



15.0 



11.0 



XII, 10 



111,8 



57 



9/17 



8+10 



" Pagroso- 

 mus 

 auratus," 

 New Zealand. 



460 



35.0 



43.0 



6.5 



9.0 



17.0 



15.0 



14.0 



10.0 



XII, 10 



111,8 



56 



10/17 



8+11 



1 Measurements given in hundredths of body length. 



(auratus, gilded.) 



Since this paper was completed Mr. Regan has written to me con- 

 cerning the Japanese specimen recorded by him as Pagrus unicolor: 



I have compared my Japanese unicolor with Australian specimens, and with Japan- 

 ese major. I should say they are the same species as the latter, but I should cer- 

 tainly not like to say that they are specifically different from the Australian speci- 

 mens. I shall be interested to see what you consider the distinctive characters of the 

 two forms. 



The species Pagrosomus auratus should therefore be omitted from 

 the list of Japanese fishes. At the same time it must be confessed 

 that PagrosoTnus major is veiy close to it and that it may ultimately 

 prove indistinguishable. The only differences we detect are those 

 slight ones indicated in the above description. 



17. Genus SPARUS Linnaeus. 



Sparus Artedi, Genera Piscium, 1738, p. 35. 



Sparus LiNN^us, Syst. Nat., ed. 10, 1758, p. 277 (aurata, pagrus, etc.). 



Chrysophrys Cuvier, Regne Anim., ed. 1, 1817, p. 272 (aurata). 



Aurata Risso, Europe Meridionale, 1826, p. 356 {semilunata= aurata) . 



Spams Fleming, British Animals, 1828, p. 211 (restricted to the gilthead, 



Sparus aurata). 

 IChrysoblephus Swainson, Nat. Hist. Class. Anim., vol. 2, 1839, p. 221 {gih- 



hiceps); (median molars very large; preopercular limb scaly). 

 Pagrichthys Bleeker, 1860 (dried specimen, with one anal epine removed). 



Ty2:)e. — Sparus aurata Linnasus. 



This genus agrees in general with Pagrus, but the species are olive 

 and silvery in color, never red, and the teeth are in broader bands, 

 the upper molars in three or more series. The scales are smaller than 

 in Pagrus, Pagrosomus, and Argyrops and the body is still deeper. 



