HISTORY or THE FISHES OF ^lASS iCHUSETTS, 317 



shows Ms specimen to hare been an imperfect one. I hare seen no specimen in which 

 the jaws were of equal length ; the lower jaw was undoubtedly broken in the specimen 

 seen by Lesueur, as is very apt to be the case in cliied specimens of this genus, else lie 

 could not haye called it ^ equirostnan '; still, as some naturalists think a specific name 

 need not point out an} particular chaiacter, and as I ha-\e no desire to detiact fioni the 

 labors of another, I shall merely point out the chaiacteis as they exist in the lecent speci- 

 men, and leaye Lesueur's name to be changed, should it e^er be thought advisable, b} 

 some succeeding ichth} ologist." In 184:2, Dekay published his " Zoology of New Yoik/' 

 In his -volume on the Ichthjology of that State, while describing this species, he sa}s : 

 '' The original notice of this species by Lesueur was made from an imperfect and diiecl 

 cabinet specimen ; and his name, of very dubious Latinity, and diawn from a false char- 

 acter, must be rejected. The name which I haye attached to it is du.e to the distin- 

 guished ichthyologist who pointed out distinctly the impropiiety of the appellation, and 

 was its first accurate describer." Dr. Dekay haying thus agreed with me in the opinion 

 of the " impropriety " of Lesueur's specific name, I did not hesitate to adopt the one 

 he proposed, in my " Synopsis of the Fishes of North America," published in 1846, 

 howeyer much I may haye desired that it should be a different one. Yalenciennes, 

 in the eighteenth yolume of his " Histoire Naturelle des Poissons," insists upon retain- 

 ing Lesueur's name of " equwostrum^'' — because, haying receiyed a specimen of Scorn" 

 heresow fioni Chili, and compared it with Lesueur's figure, he says ^' it is impossible to 

 doubt their specific identity." He thinks, if any differences are noticeable in Lesueur's 

 description from the Chilian fish, that they are referable to the fact that that description 

 was made from a dried specimen. Now what are the facts 1 Lesueur's description was 

 not accompanied by a figure. He himself was aware that his specimen was imper- 

 fect, and that his account could " not be regarded as sufiiciently complete." Valen- 

 ciennes seems to haye forgotten that the most likely accident to happen to a dried 

 specimen of this species is a fracture of the lower jaw ; that it is a rare thing to 

 find a specimen, thus preseryed, perfect in this respect; and if he refers to his desciiption 

 of the Southern fish, he will notice the caudal fin contains twenty-seyen rays, while in 

 the descriptions of Lesueur, Dekay, and my own, there are uniformly twenty ra^s in 

 that fin. Unconyinced that Dekay and myself are in error, I cannot yield my conyic- 

 tions to the authority of the justly celebrated French ichthyologist. 



Newfoundland, Lesuluk. Massachusetts, Stobek. New York, Dekay. 



yoL. yi. KEW seeies, 51 



