932 FISHES — CENTRABCHID^. 



Xystroplitea, Jordan, Bull. U. S. Xat. Mub., x, 1878 (gilli). 

 Htlioperca, Jordan, Ann. N. Y. Lye. Nat. Hist (pallidus). 



Type, Lainis auritm, L. 



Etymology, lepis, scales ; poma, opercle. 



Doisal fin much more developed than anal, its base twice or more that of the latter 

 the soft parts of the two about equal and terminating at the same vertical behind ; dor- 

 sal spines ten; anal spines three; caudal Qu emarginate; month moderate or rather 

 large, with equal jaws; maxillary with a supplemental bone, which in some species is 

 very minute or obsolete ; pharyngeal bones with conic teeth which are usually, but not 

 always sharp ; palatine teeth present or obsolete ; no teeth on the tongue or pterygoids ; 

 gill-rakers comparatively shoit, sometimes very weak; opeicnlum with a rounded flap 

 which is usually more or less elongate. Species of moderate or small size, usually 

 brightly colored. The number of species is quite large and there is considerable diver- 

 ity of form among them. 



Synonymy. — The synonymy of this genus has been complicated in several ways. In 

 the first place the typical species, Labrus auritaa, was very poorly desci ibed by Linnaeus, 

 so that it can be only identified by circumstantial evidence. The name has been often 

 but in my opinion erroneously referred to Evpomotis gibbosus. The genus Lepomis was 

 framed in 1819, to include all the Sun-fishes, but the Labrus auritus, L. was expressly 

 indicated as its type. The sub-genus Pomotis was proposed to include this typical 

 species and such others as had long opercular flaps. In 1820, Rafinesqus without assign- 

 ing any reason changed the name of his genus of Sun-fiahes fiom Lepomis to Ichthelis, and 

 transferred the name Lepomis to the Black Bass. It will be evident from the above that 

 the name Pomoiis and Ichthelis of Rafinesque, being simple synonyms of Lepomis cannot 

 be used for any of our genera of Sun-fishes so long as Lepomis is available. A more ex- 

 tended study of this group leads me to doubt the propriety of the numerons subdivisions 

 of this genus, formerly admitted by me. The following observations of Mr. McKay on 

 the genus Lepomis (Proo, U. S. Nat. Mas., 18d0, 88), I quote with full endorsement: 



" This genua as understood by me, includes Jpomotis, Xenotis, Bryttus, Helioperoa, 

 Xystropliies, and Eupomotis of authors. Apomotia has been separated from Lepomis on 

 account of the large oize of the supplemental maxillary. On careful comparison, this is 

 found to be scarcely larger than in one or two other species of Lepomis It disappears 

 by degrees, but seems to exist in all of the species, though so so small as to be inappre- 

 ciable. I have even found it present in large specimens of L. pallidus. Its presence in the 

 species is only a character of degree, therefore not generic. Till the group had been more 

 fully studied, Xenotis was supposed to contain a large number of species, and was separated 

 from Lepomis principally for convenience sake, and on the slight character of the feeble 

 gill rakers. By comparison of a very large series of the alleged species from Professor 

 Jordan's collection, I have come to the conclusion ihat they are all forms of single spe- 

 cies (L megalotis). The gill-rakers are usually rather more feeble than in the rest of the 

 species of Lepomis, but this again is a question of degree. Bryttus has been distinguished 

 from Lepomis by the presence of palatine teeth. This is also a question of degree and is 

 subject to the most perfect gradation. I have found it impossible to retain Xystroplites 

 and Eupomotis also, as there is a complete gradation in the uharacter of the pharyngeals, 

 between Lepomis proper and Xystroplites, and again between Xystroplites and Eupomotis, 

 both as to the width and form of the bones themselves and the form of the teeth." 



