82 
BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF FISHERIES 
30 to 130 millimeters, enumerated together, have a mode of 13 (87), frequently 12 (33) 
or 14 (28), rarely 15 (3). Most common number of gill rakers on the first arch 3 + 10. 
There is somewhat of a tendency to a decrease in the number of gill rakers as the 
fish increases in size, but the mode remains the same in the smaller and larger speci- 
mens examined (30 to 130 millimeters standard length), the decrease not being as 
pronounced as in the following species. Snout rather short, shorter than the least 
depth of caudal peduncle. Caudal peduncle short, the length of the rather short 
maxillary greater than the distance from posterior end of insertion of dorsal to base 
of caudal on mid line. Eye conspicuously larger than in the two other species. 
Dorsal rather long, the usual number of soft rays 28 (71) or 29 (67), frequently 27 
(18), less frequently 30 (9), rarely 31 (4); the number of rays increasing in more 
northern latitudes, the mode being at 28 in Gulf specimens, in those from Fernandina 
and Cape Canaveral, Fla., the numbers 28 and 29 are about equally distributed, 
while in North Carolina specimens the mode falls at 29. Color pale, without con- 
spicuous pigmentation, the upper part usually straw or walnut, the lower part lighter 
silvery; sometimes an indication of irregular rows of faint spots. Small individuals, 
up to about 85 millimeters standard length, have the upper part more or less faintly 
clouded, the cloudy areas tending somewhat to form broad transverse bands. 
Geographical distribution. — Occurs from Chesapeake Bay to the southwestern 
coast of Texas. The material at hand indicates that it is fairly common or abundant 
on the Gulf coast of the United States and the east coast of Florida. Recorded as 
being common on the coast of South Carolina. Probably common on the coast of 
North Carolina. 1 Not now recorded as being common in Chesapeake Bay. 
Cynoscion regalis (Bloch and Schneider) 
Common name. — Gray squeteague. 
Other common names. — Weakfish (coasts of New England, New York, and New 
Jersey); gray trout, trout, and sea trout (Chesapeake Bay and southward). 
Johnius regalis Bloch and Schneider, Systema Ichthyologia, 1801, p. 75. 
Otolithus regalis Cuvier and Valenciennes, Hist. Nat. Pois. (quarto ed.), tome 
5, 1830, p. 50 (in part; includes also the spotted squeteague, as shown by the state- 
ment “II y en a une variete plus belle, a taches noires mieux termin^es et s’6tendant 
meme sur la seconde dorsale et sur la caudale.”). 
Otolitus thalassinus Holbrook, Ichthyology of South Carolina, 1855, p. 132, pi. 
18, fig. 2. 
Cestreus regalis Jordan and Eigenmann, Rept., U. S. Commissioner of Fisheries, 
1886, p. 366 (in part; excepting specimens from Gulf of Mexico). 
Diagnosis , 4 5 — Vertebrae 25 (8). Anal soft rays with a modal number of 12 (127), 
commonly also 1 1 (57), infrequently 13 (5). Total number of gill rakers in individuals 
of 71 to 180 millimeters, standard length, with the mode at 17 (87), frequently 18 (53) 
or 16 (31), infrequently 19 (9) or 15 (6), rarely 20 (1), the modal number for the two 
4 After the above was written I received a letter from Dr. S. F. Hildebrand (Aug. 8, 1928), in which he said: “Yesterday I 
picked up in the local market a Cynoscion nothus and I obtained the interesting information that this fish has been taken in con- 
siderable numbers during the past few months in a pound net operated in the sea off Bogue Banks. I saw only 1 specimen in the 
catch of yesterday, but the manager informed me that ‘a lot of them’ had been taken and that during May they frequently obtained 
as many as 100 pounds per day. This is very interesting information, inasmuch as it was supposed that the species was quite rare 
in this vicinity. To date I do not know of a single specimen that has been taken within the harbor. I do not know of any fishing, 
exclusive of hook and line work and seining within the bight of Cape Lookout, that is done in offshore waters other than with this 
particular pound net. ft may be, therefore, that this species is much more common in our offshore waters than was supposed.” 
s The diagnosis is based on specimens from Chesapeake Bay; Beaufort, N. C.; Winyah Bay, S. C.; and Fernandina and Cape 
Canaveral, Fla. In more northern localities the number of fin rays probably increases somewhat. 
