REPRODUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT OF SCIAENIDAE 
111 
Hildebrand and Schroeder (1928, p. 299) obtained two specimens of true C. nothus 
from Chesapeake Bay, and thereby were enabled to show definitely that this is a 
valid species. Finally Ginsburg (1929, p. 71-85), who examined many specimens, 
shows the relationship of C. nothus , C. regalis, and C. arenaris (a Gulf coast species) 
in great detail. The fishermen and fish dealers of Beaufort and Morehead City 
recognize C. nothus as distinct from C. regalis, giving it the name “bastard trout” 
because it is supposed to be a cross of C. regalis and some other species. The diag- 
nostic characters of the bastard trout are given in the key to the species. 
It has been found during recent years that the bastard trout is rather common 
off Beaufort Inlet during the summer. However, no specimens were taken during 
the winter, probably because the fish migrate to warmer water. This trout certainly 
is not a regular inhabitant of the inside waters of the vicinity, as no adult specimen 
and only 4 young were taken there during 5 years of rather systematic and extensive 
collecting. The young, all taken in 1 tow-net haul, may have drifted in with the 
tide, as explained elsewhere. 
The bastard trout appeared rather frequently during the summer, sometimes 
in considerable numbers, in a collecting trawl hauled in a few to several fathoms of 
water off Shackleford and Bogue Banks. At times, particularly during the early 
part of summer, catches of about 100 pounds a day were taken in a commercial pound 
net operated for a few years off Bogue Banks. It cannot be said, however, that this 
species is of much commercial importance on the coast of North Carolina. Further 
southward, and particularly on the Gulf coast, it seems to be more important. 
The bastard trout apparently does not grow large. The largest individual seen 
at Beaufort was only 228 millimeters (9 }{ inches) long. 
This species is closely related to C. regalis, and the separation of the young 
prior to the development of the anal fin, that is, specimens under about 6 millimeters 
in length, may be difficult. It is thought, however, that the position of the color 
markings, which differ somewhat in specimens 9.5 millimeters long (the smallest 
C. nothus recognized), as pointed out on page 113, would aid in separating the smaller 
young. The position of the color markings in all the specimens at hand of tills group 
under 9.5 millimeters in length agree with C. regalis. It is concluded, therefore, that 
specimens of C. nothus under 9.5 millimeters in length are missing. 
The descriptions of the young that follow are based on specimens collected 
at Beaufort, exclusive of the account of fish 75 millimeters and upward in length, 
which is based in part on specimens from Beaufort and in part on specimens from 
the Gulf coast. 
SPAWNING 
No ripe fish, so far as known, have been observed, and if the eggs have been taken 
in the tow they were not recognized, therefore, the only clue to the time and place 
of spawning is furnished by the collection of young fish. The smallest young taken 
were secured on August 8, 1930, and the smallest specimen in that collection is 9.5 
millimeters long. The largest specimen taken the same month, which certainly 
belongs to the 0-class, is 88 millimeters long. No specimen of this year class less 
than 39 millimeters and none exceeding a length of 95 millimeters were taken dur- 
ing September. However, in October 30 specimens 17 to 25 millimeters in length 
were secured, and the largest one of this year class is only 80 millimeters long, show- 
ing that the larger young are missing in the collection. In November, when nu- 
merous specimens of the 0-class were taken, the range in length extends from 19 to 
