92 ANNUAL REPORT OF 



for distinguishing them from one another. This was virtually 

 acknowledged by Newberry, as the following extracts show, al- 

 though through hesitancy he maintained their formal separation. 

 Under the description of 5. elegans we read : 



"This is the neatest species of the genus known to me; the 

 curves of the outline of the body are graceful, the scaling 

 crowded but exact. In form it most nearly resembles /. lineatus, 

 but is smaller and broader, the back more distinctly and regularly 

 arched, and the scales more numerous." As to the affinities of 

 the so-called 5". modestus, Newberry remarks : "The fishes most 

 nearly allied to these are those which I have included under the 

 name of /. elegans, and it is perhaps not certain they should be 

 regarded as distinct," and finally, under the head of "Ischypterus 

 lenHcularis," it is stated : "The relation between these smaller 

 ovoid fishes is rather to those to which I have given the name 

 /. elegans, and here the differences may be those of age or sex.- 

 The group designated by the latter name consists of fishes which 

 are much smaller, often not much more than half the length and 

 breadth, the lower line of the body being nearly straight, the 

 upper highly arched before the dorsal fin, concavely narrowed 

 behind. Hence I have supposed that they constitute a distinct 

 species." 



There is still further proof of Newberry's indecision in this 

 matter. Examination of the co-types of his so-called S. modcstus, 

 now preserved in the American Museum of Natural History 

 in New York, shows one of them to bear an original label 

 in Newberry's handwriting, which reads as follows : "Isch. 

 modestus. — Perhaps only a variety of Isch. elegans N., but 

 having a broader and more rounded head, stronger fins, and 

 larger and thicker scales. — J. S. N." The scant importance of 

 these characters can be appreciated on comparing the figure of 

 this specimen, which is given at the bottom of his Plate IX, with 

 the figures properly referred to S. elegans. 



Anyone who attentively examines a large series of Boonton 

 fishes, and attempts to identify the more slender and elegantly 

 fusiform species according to Newberry's ideas, will appreciate 

 the difficulties presented by the wide range of effects produced by 

 distortion, faulty preservation, and individual variation. The 



