544 
BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF FISHERIES 
The comparative abundance at Beaufort of the young gobies discussed in this 
paper indicates that the adults are more numerous than the number taken in net 
collections suggests. It is probable that the adults adhere to the bottom or to objects 
on the bottom by means of the ventral disk, permitting nets to pass over them. Gobio- 
soma was able to escape nets quite successfully when confined in a large tank, as 
explained elsewhere. (See. p. 549). This propensity of escaping nets probably is 
exercised in nature by most species of gobies. 
The original drawings of young and adult fish published in this paper are based 
upon preserved specimens. The illustrations showing the development of eggs are 
after Kuntz (1916) and were drawn from living material. 
The main differences among the young of the three genera, with which this paper 
deals principally, are shown in a parallel comparison of characters appearing herewith. 
The adults of the local species differ from each other rather markedly. In Gobiosoma 
the body is naked, or at most only two scales are present on the base of the caudal. 
In Microgobius and Gobionellus, on the other hand, the body is nearly or quite fully 
covered with scales. Microgobius is distinguished from Gobionellus in having a 
deeper and more compressed body. Furthermore, the mouth is large and strongly 
oblique, the maxillary reaching nearly opposite the middle of eye in Microgobius, 
while in Gobionellus the mouth is scarcely oblique and the maxillary reaches only below 
the anterior margin of the eye. The dorsal spines are 7 in number and are about 
equally spaced in Microgobius, whereas Gobionellus has 6 dorsal spines, with the 
last 2 notably farther apart than the others; and Microgobius has a larger second 
dorsal and anal fin, each fin being composed of 16 or 17 rays, while Gobionellus has 
only 11 to about 15 rays in each fin. 
The eggs of the gobies of North Carolina, as already indicated, have not been 
found in nature. Those of Gobiosoma bosci and Gobionellus boleosoma were secured by 
Kuntz (1916) by stripping the ripe fish. The eggs of the first-mentioned species also 
were secured recently by us. The eggs of all the other species remain unknown. 
Kuntz (loc. cit.) found that the eggs of Gobiosoma bosci and Ctenogobius stigmaticus 
{—Gobionellus boleosoma ) each had a bundle of adhesive threads attached to the egg 
membrane. These threads no doubt serve the purpose in nature of attaching the 
eggs to submerged objects. 
Ehrenbaum (1905), dealing with European species, stated that the eggs of Gobius 
niger are attached to plants, shells, ascidians, and stones ; G. Jlavescens are attached 
to plants; and those of G. minutus to molluskan shells. Hefford (1910) found the 
eggs, with an adult fish (sex not stated), of Gobius paganellus “on a stone between 
tide marks on the shore” at Plymouth, England. It is not stated that the adult 
fish guarded the eggs. Clark (1913) stated that the eggs, with males, of Crystallo- 
gobius nilssoni were found in abundance in the waters at Plymouth, England, attached 
to the inside of empty tubes of Chaetopterus. Petersen (1917) figured the eggs of 
four species occurring on the coast of Denmark, namely, Gobius niger, G. ruthensparri, 
G. minutus, and G. microps, showing that the eggs of each species possess an adhesive 
foot. Lebour (1919) said of Gobius paganellus: “From early spring to late summer 
the males may be seen guarding their eggs, which are attached to the under surface 
of stones in masses.” Lebour (1919) isolated several adults of Gobius ruthensparri in 
a tank and one deposited eggs on the inside of an empty oyster shell. It was not 
stated that the eggs were guarded by a male. Lebour (1920), who illustrated the eggs 
of Gobius minutus, G. microps, and G. pictus with adhesive organs, stated that those 
of the first-mentioned species were laid on an oyster shell, and those of the second one 
