WEAKFISHES 73 
(Holbrook), which has not been recognized since the describer’s time, seems to be 
merely nominal, as the description is close to C. regalis and C. nothus.” 
Briefly, then, the consensus of opinion at the present time may be stated as 
follows: Omitting the spotted squeteague, there are two species of squeteagues com- 
mon enough to enter into the commercial catch; one, the gray squeteague ( Cynoscion 
regalis), is the common market fish of the Atlantic coast, while the other, the bastard 
trout or sand trout ( Cynoscion nothus), is the common market fish of the Gulf coast. 
C. regalis does not occur or is very rare on the Gulf coast, and C. nothus usually 
is taken rather sparingly on the Atlantic coast. C. thalassinus is a very doubtful 
species. I had these ideas in mind when I began the study of the sand trout of 
the Gulf. It soon became evident, however, that such ideas do not fit the actual 
facts, and a study of considerable available material was undertaken in order to 
throw more light, if possible, on the subject. 
The present study has shown that instead of one there are two very distinct 
and easily separable species of sand trout on the Gulf coast. Both are common, 
although the relative abundance of the two must be left for future determination. 
One of these species is smaller than the other and, so far as the material at hand 
discloses, apparently does not enter to any great extent into the commercial catch; 
the other species is the common market fish. This larger and common species is not 
nothus. It is very close to regalis, but evidently is sufficiently distinct to require a 
separate designation and is here named Cynoscion arenarius. The name thalassinus 
is definitely based on specimens from the Atlantic coast and is not applicable to this 
species, which is confined to the Gulf coast. 
The smaller Gulf species evidently is the same as that described by Holbrook 
under the name of Otolithus nothus and is here recognized under that name. Many 
specimens of this species from both the Atlantic and Gulf coast have been examined. 
Some of this material has been previously identified by me or by other workers either 
as nothus or regalis, depending on whether it came from the Gulf or the Atlantic coast, 
respectively. This is easily explained by the fact that nearly all of the material 
consists of small specimens of less than 7 inches, and when of that size the appearance 
of the fish is such that the species can not be distinguished by a mere visual com- 
parison, even when such comparison is made by an experienced ichthyologist. How- 
ever, when the distinguishing characters outlined below are examined no trouble 
will be experienced in identifying even the smallest specimens. When identification 
is thus definitely made, our material shows that Cynoscion nothus is really more 
common on the Atlantic coast, from North Carolina southward, than most of the 
discussions in current literature would seem to indicate. 
The present study has failed to confirm the distinctness of the form that has 
been named thalassinus. Of the many specimens of gray trout examined from 
Chesapeake Bay, from the coasts of North and South Carolina, and from the east 
coast of Florida, I have failed to distinguish more than one species and am therefore 
forced to the conclusion that thalassinus is untenable. It was evidently based on 
some slender individuals of regalis, which manifestly show considerable variation 
in that character. The coloration shown by Holbrook is essentially that of regalis. 
The number of fin rays is used by the author as one of the chief distinguishing marks, 
but his counts are obviously unreliable; as, for instance, when he states that regalis 
has only 9 dorsal spines, whereas it nearly always has 10. Besides this, the number of 
soft dorsal rays given in the original description falls within the range of variation of 
