TWO SPECIES OF RED SNAPPERS 
79 
The type of L. blackfordii is, of course, specifically identical with the specimens which form 
the basis of the above descriptions. The description published under this name by Goode and 
Bean is the first tolerable account of this most valuable food fish. We regret, therefore, our 
inability to retain the appropriate name which these authors have bestowed on the species. 
Jordan and Fesler * 7 were also of the opinion that there was only one species 
of red snapper to which they apply the name Lutjanus aya. The name L. vivanus 
is applied by these authors to the silk snapper, the pargo de lo alto of the Cubans, 
and L. torridus of Cope is placed in the synonymy of the last-mentioned species. 
Jordan and Evermann 8 were also of the opinion that there is only one species 
of red snapper. In a footnote to their description of the red snapper they state: 
The type of Mesoprion campechanus examined by us at Habana is a stuffed skin of a young 
fish, apparently belonging to this species. In this specimen the eye is larger than it should be 
in a red snapper of that size, it being, as Poey has correctly stated, 4 in head. This large size is, 
however, probably due to the shrinkage of the orbit in drying. Poey also counts “65 scales 
above the lateral line and 53 below,” a larger number than others count in this species. This 
difference is doubtless dependent on the method of counting. The type of Lutjanus blackfordii is, 
of course, the present species, and the first good description of the species is that published by 
Goode and Bean under this name. We are forced, however, to adhere to our original view that 
the name campechanus certainly belongs to the same fish, and the still older name aya is as well 
authenticated as the names given by Bloch are likely to be. We can not, therefore, make use 
of the name blackfordi as the specific name of the red snapper. 
By a direct comparison of specimens the present writers find that there are 
at least two species of red snapper. The characters of the larger eye and finer 
scales are real and serve well to separate a red snapper found in the Caribbean Sea 
(and probably in other West Indian waters) from the common red snapper of 
Pensacola. There are other important characters by which these two species 
differ, as will be shown presently. The name Lwtianus campechanus is here applied 
to the Caribbean red snapper, as it seems to agree with the original description of 
that species in all important details, and it seems to be the same fish which Poey 
had when he described that species, while the Pensacola red snapper must stand 
as L. Uackfordii. In view of our study, it seems best to hold the name aya in 
abeyance, insofar as our red snappers are concerned, until a direct comparison 
is made of the Brazilian fish of that name with the more northern red snappers. 
The Bureau of Fisheries has recently received, through the courtesy of F. W. 
Wallace, editor of the Fishing Gazette, and J. F. Taylor, president of the Warren 
Fish Co., Pensacola, Fla., a fine specimen of red snapper caught in the Caribbean 
Sea off the coast of Honduras. The expedition on which this fish was caught was 
superintended by F. W. Wallace and was for the purpose of seeking new fishing 
banks. In a letter accompanying the specimen Mr. Taylor stated: 
We are shipping to the Bureau of Fisheries a specimen of red snapper caught in the Caribbean 
Sea on a recent trip of our vessel, A. F. Warren. As the species seems quite different from the 
ordinary, we thought it might prove interesting to you on examination, and we would be pleased 
to have your views after making this examination. The flesh of the fish appears to be much 
firmer, the scales smaller, and its contour different from the fish caught on Campeche Banks 
and offshore here. 
'“A review of the sparoid fishes of America and Europe.” Report, U. S. Commissioner of Fish and Fisheries, 1889-1891 
(1893), p. 447. Washington. 
8 “The fishes of North and Middle America.” Part II. Bulletin, U. S. National Museum, No. 47, Part II, 1898, p. 1264. 
