PISHES OF CHESAPEAKE BAY 
299 
Habitat . — New York to Texas. 
Chesapeake localities. — (a) Previous records: Lower Potomac, Cape Charles city, Old Point 
Comfort, and Norfolk. ( b ) Specimens in collection: From numerous localities, from Annapolis, 
Md., to Cape Charles and Cape Henry, Va. 
Comparison of lengths and weights of spotted squeteagues 
Number of fish weighed and measured 
Length 
Weight 
Number of fish weighed and measured 
Length 
Weight 
1 
Inches 
5 
7H 
7% 
8 
812 
9 
1014 
1U4 
ny 2 
Ounces 
0.6 
2.0 
2.3 
2.6 
3.5 
3.8 
6.0 
7.0 
9.0 
1 
Inches 
12 
15M 
17M 
18 
19 
20V 2 
22>i 
27 
Lbs. Oz. 
9.5 
1 5.6 
2 1.0 
2 10.0 
2 8.6 
3 5.7 
4 15.0 
8 6.5 
2 
1 
1 
1 _ 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
2 
2 
2_ - 
1 ... 
1_ 
i .. 
164. Cynoscion nothus (Holbrook). “ Bastard trout Silver squeteague. 
Otolilhus nothus Holbrook, Ichtb., South Carolina, 1860, p. 134, PI. XIX, fig. 1; South Carolina. Lugger, 1878, p. 111. 
Cynoscion nothus Jordan and Evermann, 1896-1900, p. 1406, PI. CCXX, fig. 561. 
Head 3.2; depth 3.3 to 3.5; D. X-I, 28 or 29; A. II, 9; scales 68 or 69. Body compressed, 
rather deep; back more strongly elevated than in related species; head long; snout moderate, 3.9 to 
4.05 in head; eye 3.9 to 4.25; interorbital 4.55; mouth large, oblique; lower jaw projecting; maxillary 
reaching vertical from posterior margin of pupil, 2.25 in head; teeth as in C. regalis; gill rakers 9 on 
lower limb of first arch; scales rather large, thin, ctenoid, extending on head and fins as in C. regalis, 
about eight between origin of anal and lateral line; caudal fin round; anal fin very small; fins other- 
wise as in C. regalis. 
Color plain greenish blue above; silvery below; no dark spots or reticulations; fins all plain; axil 
of pectoral dusky. 
Two specimens, each 215 millimeters (8^ inches) in length, were preserved and form the 
basis for the foregoing description. This species, as already indicated, differs from C. regalis, its 
nearest relative, in the deeper and more compressed body. These differences are real and unmis- 
takable when specimens of even size are compared. The scales are larger, the gill rakers are fewer, 
the anal fin is shorter, and the caudal fin is rounded in the specimens in hand, whereas in specimens 
of the same size of C. regalis the margin is nearly straight. The color is plainer than is usual for 
C. regalis, although this character is rather unreliable, as the writers have seen individuals of C. 
regalis that were equally as plain in co’or. 
The figure published by Jordan and Evermann (1896-1900, PI. CCXX, fig. 561) and repub- 
lished by Smith (1907, p. 309, fig. 137) is misleading, as it appears to have been based on an unusu- 
ally slender fish. Furthermore, the scales are represented as much smaller than they are in the 
specimens at hand and in the original color plate of Holbrook. 
3.Y/ 
