Notice of the Report on the Fishes of New York. 283 
same eel, Dekay has admirably described nearly thirty years sub- 
sequently, as a new species. 
Syngnathus fasciatus, (p.319.)—This species I described and 
figured several years since in my report, under the name of S. 
Peckianus. Dr. Dekay says his species differs from mine in the 
following particulars: “The body of our species, in front of the 
dorsal fin, is heptangular; head and rostrum proportionally longer ; 
the greatest depth of the rostrum scarcely exceeding twice the 
greatest depth of the head. ‘The dorsal fin longer than the head, 
measured to the posterior part of the operculum.” My descrip- 
tion reads as follows—“ on each side of the anterior portion of the 
body are three ridges, and one passes from the neck through the 
middle of the abdomen to the vent ;”’ these seven ridges, | suppos- 
ed made it heptangular. The length of the head differs much 
in its proportions to the whole length of the fish in this species, 
and cannot be relied upon. ‘Thus in three specimens lying before 
me at this moment, one measuring eight inches, has the head 
one inch long; another measuring eight and a half inches, has 
the head precisely as long as the former ; and a third seven inch- 
es long, has the head seven eighths of an inch long. As great a 
difference is noticeable in the depth of the rostrum. [ also, in 
my report, state the dorsal fin to be longer than the head. 
Syngnathus viridescens, (p. 321.)—In my report, I called 
this species fuscus. The difference between Dekay’s fish and 
that which I described is this—in his specimen its color was 
“dark olive green above ;”’ in mine, the ‘‘ body was of an irreg- 
ular dull brown color above.”? You can judge whether a mere 
shade of color constitutes a specific character. 
Lactophrys camelinus, (p. 341.)—I do not refer to this page to 
say aught of the genus, which appears to me however to be alto- 
gether unnecessary, but merely to observe, I regret that any sci- 
entific man should allow himself to refer to a mere popular work, 
particularly if that work has been publicly pronounced, and prov- 
ed to be, full of errors and unworthy the slightest confidence. I 
would again refer him to the notice of a History of Fishes of 
Massachusetts, contained in Silliman’s Journal for 1839. 
Spinax acanthias ? (p. 359.)—After quoting this species with 
a query, upon my authority, Dr. Dekay observes, “I am almost 
inclined to suspect our species distinct from that of Europe.” 
This remark would have seemed much less singular if he had 
