APPENDIX. 411 



In speaking of his S. colias, M. Cuvier observes, " there is no doubt that 

 it is the same as the Scomber niacrophthalmus of Rafinesque ; all the cha- 

 racters accord, excepting that the author finds six false fins above, an 

 error which he might have easily fallen into by the separation of the last 

 ray of the second dorsal, or by counting the last ray as two." I can see no 

 ground for this supposition, which would not, perhaps, have been enter- 

 tained if M. Cuvier had seen any Scombri with six false fins : two of these 

 we now characterise ; Rafinesque's is probably a third, Mr. Couch's Tuacu- 

 latus a fourth, and there are sufficient grounds for believing that others 

 exist, that have been erroneously placed by M. Cuvier under his S. colias, 

 which latter species, moreover, we do not agree with him in considering 

 the same as the Colia of Rondeletius. 



NAUCRATES ductor Cuv. 



Dorsal spines three ; anal two ; lower jaw longer than 

 the upper ; body and posterior fins with transverse 

 blackish bands ; " irides golden." 



Naucrates Fanfarus. Raff. Caratt. p. 41. 

 Naucratis ductor. Cuv. et Val. H. N, des Poissons, viii. 312. 

 pi. 232. 



Inhabits the coasts of Sicily and the Mediterranean. 



" This," observes professor Rafinesque, " like the A^. ductor 

 of authors, has the body transversely banded with blackish, but 

 this latter is very distinct from having four distinct spined rays, 

 the jaws of equal length, and the lateral line straighter : both 

 have the same habits ; but A^. fanfarus, instead of inhabit- 

 ing the Ocean, is found in the Mediterranean, where it is com- 

 mon. Nor is it restricted to the shores of Sicily, for I 

 have reason to believe it is found from the coasts of Spain to 

 those of the Levant. In Sicily it is called t\\Q fanfaro; it is 

 abundant in autumn, and usually measures about a foot in 

 length ; the irides are golden." 



Upon the above description, a close translation of the original Italian, 

 M. Cuvier makes the following remark. The Naucrates ductor Cuv. "is 

 also the Naucrate fanfaro of M. Rafinesque. If that naturalist thought 

 that his /flsw/iatro differed from the common pilot, it was because he only 

 judged of the latter from bad figures." 



It will be seen, however, from the following description, that M. Rafi- 

 nesque was perfectly aware of the existence of a second species of Naucrates 

 in the Mediterranean, which M. Cuvier was not, and has consequently 

 confounded with the above. On the part of M. Rafinesque there does not 

 appear any error ; he retained the original name of ductor to one species, 

 and to the other he gave that oi fanfarus. Had this latter name not been 

 a provincial one, we should have felt bound to have adopted it, not merely 

 on the score of priority, but because it would be only rendering common 

 although tardy justice to the accuracy of his discrimination, — at least in 

 this instance. But as the case now stands, and M. Cuvier's name has 

 been generally adopted, we think it had better, perhaps, be retained ; 

 although it may probably lead to error if the distinctions here pointed out 

 between these two species are not kept in view. 



