40 CONTRIBUTIONS TO NORTH AMERICAN ICHTHYOLOGY II. 



Nominal species. 



Date. 



Identification. 



Dioplites treculii, Le Vaillant & Bocourt. 

 Dioplites variabilis, (Le S.) Le V. & Boc... 

 Copelandia eriarcha, Jor. t 



1874 

 1874 

 1876 

 1877 

 1877 

 1877 

 1877 

 1877 

 1877 

 1877 

 1877 

 1877 

 1877 

 1877 

 1877 



Micropterus pallidus (?). 

 Micropterus pallidus (?). 

 Copelandia eriarcha. 

 Xenotis lythrochloris. 

 Xenotis aureolus. 





Xenotis aureolus, Jor. t ..... ... 



Xystroplites gillii , Jor. t .- 



Xystroplitos gillii. 

 Lepiopomus ischyrus. 

 Apomotis phenax. 

 Lepiopomus miniatus. 

 Enneacanthus pinniger. 

 Enneacanthus margarotis. 

 Enneacanthus milnerianus. 

 Lepiopomus apiatus. 

 Lepiopomus mystacalis. 

 Eupomotis speciosus (?). 



Lepiopomus ischyrus, Jor. & Nels. t 



Lepiopomus miniatus, Jor.t 



Enneacanthus pinniger, Gill & Jor. t 



Enneacanthus margarotis, Gill & Jor 



Enneacanthus milnerianus. Cope, MSS 



Lepomis apiatus, Cope, MSS . 



Lepomis mystacalis, Cope, MSS 



Xystroplites longimanus. Cope, MSS 



24. XENOTIS LYTHROCHLORIS. 



Iclhelis aurita, Raf., Ichthyologia ohiensis, 1820 (not Ldbrus auritus Liinn. ; not ie» 

 jyomis auritus Raf., 1819). 

 Lepomis auritus, Cope, Journ. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila. 1868 (not Lepomis auritus Gill). 

 Ichihelis sanguinolentus, Jordan, Man. Vert. 1876 (in part, confounded with X.viegalotis 



and X. sanguinolentus. ) 

 Xenotis lythrochloris, Jordan (1877), Bull. U. S. Nat. Mus. is, — . 



This elegant species is fairly described by Eafiuesque, and quite ac- 

 curately by Prof. Cojje, but no other writers seem to have distinguished 

 it. It does not seem best to retain the name auritus. Rafinesque ap- 

 parently took this species for the Linnean auritus, and, if so, this is 

 simply a case of mistaken identification, and the name thus given in 

 error should not be retained. If we suppose that Rafinesque intended 

 to describe his aurita as a new species, we have the anomalous case of 

 an author describing a new species under the specific name borne by an 

 old species which he himself elsewhere precisely indicates as the type 

 of his genus. In this view, which would be absurd in regard to any 

 author other than Rafinesque, we should have two species, strongly 

 resembling each other, in closely related genera, both bearing the same 

 specific name, Lepiopomus atiritus and Xenotis auritus. This undesira- 

 ble arrangement we can avoid by supposing, what is probably the fact, 

 that Rafinesque wrongly identified his Ictlielis aurita with Labrus auri- 

 tus of Linnseus. Rafinesque's aurita being thus without a specific name, 



