1889.] Zoology. 917 
Nevertheless, Jenkins and Evermann, in their rafinesque paper, 
quoted above, which was issued Jan. 5th, 1889, do not mention this fact, 
but state that "an examination of the material at hand leads us to 
believe that the newly proposed genus Clevelandia was based upon 
characters that are not of generic value, and cannot therefore stand. 
In Gillichthys the number of dorsal spines has been invariably given 
as six. The fact that the number of dorsal spines in Clevelandia and 
in our specimens, which will agree otherwise with ^ Gillichthys as lim- 
ited by Cooper, are four and five respectively, would seem to indicate 
that the limits of the genus Gillichthys should be extended. This is 
evidently preferable to basing a new genus upon so slight a character 
as a difference of one or two dorsal spines." This statement occurs 
under the head of G. guaymasice. 
These statements of Jenkins and Evermann deserve some comment. 
The " material at hand " (i) was the types of guaymasice, including a 
prepared skull ; (2) a series of skeletons prepared by me in the col- 
lections of the Indiana University, where Jenkins and Evermann's 
hastily prepared paper was written; (3) the notes furnished Mr. 
Evermann on the types of Clevelandia. Of this material Jenkins and 
Evermann have seen fit to ignore all but the types o{ guaymasice (a de- 
scription of the skull of this species is conveniently omitted.) 
The second sentence quoted above was copied from Jordan and 
Eigenmann's Review of the Gobiidae, and may stand. The third 
sentence needs modification. The type of Clevelandia was described 
by Steindacher, Ichthyol. Beitr., VIIL, 27, zs, Gobiosoma longipinne 
with four to six dorsal spines, so it is hardly probable that we should 
have based the new genus of "dorsal spines," as Jenkins and Ever- 
mann have supposed. 
We have been in hopes for some time of obtaining duplicates of the 
types of the gobies described by Jenkins and Evermann, in order to 
determine their generic relations, and figure them for a paper on the 
gobies of the West coast. 
It is perhaps well to state that we have found Clevelandia longipinne 
to be the commonest fi.sh in San Diego Bay. Gillichthys y cauda}. 
& E., is also found in San Diego Bay. To the diagnosis given by 
Jenkins and Evermann should be added "shoulder with dermal flaps." 
The statement, " teeth in a single series on premaxillaries and mandi- 
ble," etc., should read " teeth in droad hands," etc. 
A revision of the diagnosis of the genus Clevelandia is in press. 
