September 9, 1904.] 



SCIENCE. 



329 



Text'; of the fish part two editions had 

 been published at Diisseldorf, one in 1819- 

 26 and the other in 1828-34. This work 

 was the source of most of the reduced and 

 very poorly engraved wood-cuts wliich ac- 

 company the text; three were borrowed 

 from Mitchill's 'Fishes of New York.' 

 Such are the facts, but in his preface Smith 

 makes no mention of Straek's work and 

 leads up to the supposition that his cuts 

 were original. His words are, "With re- 

 spect to the engravings, they are far short, 

 in many instances, of what was anticipated. 

 Some of them are beautifully and ac- 

 curately executed ; but others are miserable 

 caricatures. The artist was young and 

 inexperienced, and when he would have 

 willingly made a second drawing the press 

 could not be kept in waiting." 



He has certainly told the truth in the 

 acknowledgment that the engravings were 

 'miserable caricatures.' They are gener- 

 ally very poor copies of the originals. For 

 example, Straek's figure of the fresh water 

 lamprey represented correctly seven lateral 

 branchial foramina; Smith's copy only 

 five! A few examples may now be ex- 

 amined as samples of the many kinds of 

 errors he committed. To expose all would 

 require a volume as large as the one noticed. 



Under the caption 'Gen. Scylliam' 

 three species are claimed for Massachusetts, 

 the 'sea-dog, ScylUum Canicula' (p. 80) ; 

 the 'ScylUum Catuliis' (p. 81) ; and the 

 'dog-fish, Squalus Ganis' (p. 82). Now, 

 no species of the genus ScylUum has ever 

 been obtained from the coast-waters of 

 Massachusetts and the only sharks called 

 sea-dog or dog-fish that could have been 

 known to Smith were the picked dog-fish, 

 Squalus acanthias, and the smooth hound, 

 Musteliis canis, which were not named by 

 him. 



Gray mullets or mugilids, as every one 

 here knows, are among the most common 

 of the shore fishes from Woods Hole south- 



ward, and, under the name Mugil alhula, 

 were well described by Mitchill in 1814, in 

 New York, but Smith urges (p. 268), 'Not- 

 withstanding the minute description there 

 given, we think there must be some mistake, 

 and our private opinion is that no other 

 species than the red mullet is a native 

 fish'! Following up this fancy, under 

 the caption 'Gen. Sarmullus' (a new 

 name!) he specifies (p. 271) the 'red mul- 

 let, M^Mus Barhatus,' and, after a break of 

 many pages, immediately after the mack- 

 erel (p. 304), he names 'the surmullet, 

 Mullus Surmuletus. ' As to the former, he 

 avers (p. 271) that 'red mullet have ap- 

 peared, within the last few years, in the 

 neighborhood of Boston, but not being at 

 all prized, a few only have been exhibited 

 in the market.' The surmullet was de- 

 clared (p. 304) to be 'a variety of the 

 mackerel,' and this remark was followed 

 by comments on its place in Roman estima- 

 tion, on what was evidently the chub mack- 

 erel, and on fishing for mackerel ! 



There is a peculiar genus of gadoidean 

 fishes named Baniceps, represented by a 

 single species of northern Europe, and the 

 type of a distinct family, Ranicipitidse. 

 To this 'Gen. Raniceps' Smith referred 

 two species; one named (p. 209) 'Blenny, 

 Blennius Viviparus [Baniceps Trifurcatus, 

 Guv.],' the other (p. 211) 'Baniceps Blen- 

 nioides. ' The former was evidently the 

 Zoarces anguillaris and consequently be- 

 longs to a widely different species from 

 the 'viviparus,' a different family from 

 Blennius, and a different family also from 

 Baniceps trifurcatus. The latter name, 

 we learn from Storer, represented a speci- 

 men 'purchased of Smith, by the Boston 

 Society of Natural History, of a Grypta- 

 canthodes maculatus 'with the cuticle 

 abraded'; consequently the species belongs 

 to a very distinct family from the genus 

 Baniceps, as well as from the first species. 



Another striking manifestation of his 



