394 Miscellanies. 



connected with them, are absolutely rejected. It has been said that 

 he should be considered a public benefactor, who makes but a single 

 blade of grass grow where none grew before ; the same honor ought 

 truly to be accorded to another, who, though he cannot create, makes 

 known to the community the existence of a new species of edible 

 fishes, or that a species already known, though shunned or rejected 

 from some unfounded prejudice, may be used with safety and advan- 

 tage. This has been done to a considerable extent in this book, and 

 no doubt with useful efTect. 



The new species described are ten; one, constituting a new genus, 

 to which the author has given the name of Cryptacanthodes macula- 

 tus. It is of the family of " mailed cheeks," and particularly dis- 

 tinguished from any other genus of this family, by the existence of 

 concealed spines on the operculum, preoperculum and scapular bones. 

 It seems to be established on correct principles, and will undoubtedly 

 be adopted by ichthyologists. The other new species are 



Pholis sub-bifurcatus, 



Leuciscus argenteus, 

 " pulchellus, 



Morrhua Americana, 



Platessa ferruginea, 



Echeneis quatuordecem-laminatus, 



Syngnathus fuscus, 



" Peckianus, 



Monocanthus Massachusettensis. 

 One of these is the common cod, of Massachusetts Bay, which Dr» 

 Storer considers not to be sufficiently identified with the Morrhua 

 vulgaris, of Europe, and therefore describes it as a new species, 

 under the name of M. Americana. If this is a new species, it is a 

 xnost extraordinary instance of a most abundant animal having passed 

 through the hands of various observers, for a great length of time, 

 without detection, including within their numbers so celebrated a nat- 

 uralist as Pennant. But it may be considered as very doubtful whether 

 this be any thing more than a variety. The same fish appears to 

 have been noticed by Dr. Mitchill, in his paper on the fishes of New 

 York, as the M. callarias, (Lin.) The remarks of Dr. Storer prove 

 very clearly that it is not the European callarias ; but it is doubtful 

 whether Richardson's remark on Mitchill's, " that it is probably a 

 distinct species," meant any thing more than that it was distinct from 

 the callarias of which he vi^as then speaking. Yarrell, who was evi- 

 dently acquainted with Mitchill's description, considered it to be the 

 common cod, as must be inferred from his quoting his words under 

 his own description of Morrhua vulgaris. He also states most ex- 



