348 Remarks on the Natural History of Fishes. 



been : the only species described, is an inhabitant only of the 

 Mediterranean and Black Seas. 



Under the head of " Fistularia,'^ we find the " iabacaria^^ 

 illustrated by a figure from Strack ; and our writer says, " had 

 we not two excellent specimens of this fish taken near Holmes' 

 Hole, its existence would not have been credited so far north of 

 the Equator." One of these '' two excellent specime7is^^ belongs 

 by purchase to this Society, and is not the foreign fish, but the 

 " serrata^ 



Thus have I taken a hasty review of that portion of the vol- 

 ume before us which treats of distinct species : the remainder of 

 the work I have not referred to, determined to confine myself 

 only to what appeared absolutely necessary to be noticed. The 

 remarks upon the " Anatomy and Physiology of Fishes," and 

 the " Treatise on Angling,'^ are foreign to my purpose. The ac- 

 curacy or errors of the /ormer, may be ascertained by consulting 

 any standard work on Comparative Anatomy ; of the latter sub- 

 ject I plead entire ignorance. 



A few words more and my unpleasant task is done. The 248 

 pages over which we have thus rapidly passed, contain notices of 

 105 species, of which 80 are foreigners, and but 25 are found in 

 the waters of our State. Of these 105 species, 36 are illustrated 

 by figures ; of these 36 illustrations, but 9 accompany species 

 which are found on our coast ; of these 9 figures, 6 are copied 

 from " StracWs Plates,'''' and 3 from Mitchill's " Fishes of New 

 York .'" Of the 36 plates contained in this " History,'' not one 

 is drawn from nature. If "the chief value of a written history 

 is in its truth, and next in the evidences of its truth,"* what reli- 

 ance can be placed in us as naturalists, when one of our number 

 is allowed to publish such a work as this, and it is permitted to 

 circulate for years without a word being said or a line written 

 to point out its inaccuracies ? Why should we wonder that Yar- 

 rell, in his ^'History of British Fishes," should really think that 

 the " Silurus glanis" and " Petromyzon inarinus" were found 

 in Massachusetts, or that Richardson in his "Fau7ia Boreali 

 Arnericana," guarded as he generally has been in receiving what 

 is stated here, should almost believe that the " Lampres gutta- 

 tus," and " Clupea harengus," and " Merlangus vulga?'is" and 



• North American Review, No. 53, p. 439. 



