320 BULLETIN OF THE UNITED STATES FISH COMMISSION. 



seems designed to afford additional surface and leverage for the origin of the muscle 

 that controls the movements of the caudal fin or tail. 



This is all that need be said in the present paper in regard to the osteology of 

 Micropterus. My object in writing this contribution has been to collect together the 

 scattered accounts of the various parts of the skeleton previously given by rae in 

 different publications, and to review and correct any errors that may have crept into 

 my previous work upon this form. The paper, it is hoped, will prove useful in con- 

 nection with a general study of the comparative osteology of the entire family of the 

 CentrarcMdw, which some day may be either undertaken by myself or some other 

 anatomist. That such a research should be made and published no one has any 

 doubt. 



Doctors Jordan and Evermann, in their Fishes of North and Middle America (Part 

 I, pp. 984-1012), have treated quite fully of the species and genera of this group, and 

 have given us a very useful classification of them. Nevertheless we stand much in need 

 of full and comparative accounts of the skeletons of Pomoa?is, Centrarchus, Acantharchus, 

 Ambloplites and other genera, and especially of the sun-fishes, Apomotis, Lepomis, 

 and Uupomotis. When such comparative osteological studies come to be made, and 

 comparisons made with the skeleton in the Serranidce and other families, it is believed 

 that the present contribution to the~ subject, taken in connection with the figures and 

 text matter of the memoir on Amia, will prove to be more or less useful. 



