958 



8GIENCJS 



[N. S. Vol. XXXI. No. 807 



to the laboratory at Madison. Unfortunately, 

 the eireumstances of the trip made adequate 

 field notes impossible. 



On taking up the study of these forms it 

 immediately developed that lots 372~and 538 

 (with a few exceptions, not important here) 

 differed from all the others, and indeed from 

 all species of Argyrosomus so far known, by 

 the fact that they had thirty or fewer gill- 

 rakers on the first gill arch. On further ex- 

 amination they displayed other differential 

 characters, and it is these forms that are in- 

 cluded under the new species described above. 



Evermann and Smith (" Report U. S. Com- 

 missioner of Fish and Fisheries," 1894, p. 

 311) in 1896 described as aberrant forms of 

 Argyrosomus hoyi Gill, eight specimens (five 

 from Lake Michigan and three from Lake 

 Superior) which undoubtedly belong to the 

 species here described, agreeing with it per- 

 fectly as to number of gillrakers, the smaller 

 eye, and greater body depth. They certainly 

 are as near prognathus as they are to hoyi, 

 but are not very close to either except as to 

 lack of pigmentation on the head. Argyro- 

 somus hoyi, as I understand that species, has 

 the lower jaw so far included that it really 

 resembles a Coregonus, and its upper lip is 

 quite thick. A. johannce has undoubtedly 

 been largely confused with it. As far as my 

 observations go, A. hoyi is not nearly so com- 

 mon as A. johanncB. However, that is a point 

 on which I hope soon to make more detailed 

 observations. 



The form here described comes much closer 

 to A. prognathus in its general characteristics. 



but is less robust and shows much less of the 

 longitudinal striping of that species, while the 

 number of gillrakers of course makes a wide 

 difference. 



Li describing this form, after long delibera- 

 tion, I have hoped to add something toward 

 the elucidation of our North American Core- 

 gonidse. Even the longest known fdrms of 

 these are none too well understood, and abun- 

 dant field work in many localities must be 

 done before we can hope fully to clear up the 

 status of most of them. 



George Wagner 



Wisconsin Geological and 

 Natural Histoky Survey, 

 May 1, 1910 



FIRST USE OF AMPHIBLi IN" ITS MODERN SENSE 



In 1896 I urged the retention of Amphibia 

 for the class then generally called, in the 

 United States, Batrachia.^ Cope strongly 

 protested against such usage and afiirmed 

 that the name was not " introduced to take 

 the place of Batrachia with a definition until 

 a few years ago by Huxley."^ Bauer soon 

 proceeded to " show that the opinion of Pro- 

 fessor GiU is the only one that can be ac- 

 cepted.'" Several other articles followed in 

 Science.' In fine, the name Amphibia has 

 been generally accepted in the last few years 

 in the United States as well as in Germany. 



1 Science, IV., 1896, p. 600. 



-Am. Nat., XXX., 1896, p. 1027. 



= Science, VI., 1897, pp. 170-174. 



'Science, VI., p. 295 (Wilder); VI., p. 446 

 (Gill); VI., p. 772 (Hay); XII., p. 730 (Gill); 

 XX., p. 924 (Stejneger). 



