268 
BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF FISHERIES 
The fishermen were given instructions to the effect that nothing over half of their catch could be 
yellowtails, but with the increased catches these instructions were changed to no yellowtails will be 
accepted. From now on only the real red snapper will be shipped from Pensacola. 
The Bureau of Fisheries, acting on the above report, has received, through the 
courtesy of the Warren Fish Co. of Pensacola, two specimens of the “yellowtail” 
referred to above, which form the basis of the foregoing description. In view of the 
fact that what appears to be the same species is said to be a highly esteemed market 
fish in the West Indies, it seems possible to find a market for this fish in this country 
when sold under its own name, instead of lumping it with the red snapper. 
J. F. Taylor, president of the Warren Fish Co., in a letter dated March 14, 1930, 
accompanying the shipment, has made some interesting remarks regarding the eco- 
nomics of this fish, as follows : 
Agreeable to your request we are sending you two different specimens of yellowtails and in 
addition are sending a third specimen which the fishermen have dubbed hambone [L. buccanella ]. 
This latter fish is comparatively rare and is taken only on rock bottom. 
The yellowtails are very plentiful and are taken, generally, from mud bottom. Whether they 
take mud into their stomachs when feeding or whether there is some other cause that makes them 
objectionable we are not certain, but we do know that our trade decline to handle them, claiming 
that they do not keep well, also that they give off a very strong odor while cooking, and that a great 
many complaints are received to the effect that the fish “curl” 2 while cooking. 
RELATIONSHIP 
This species is very similar in general appearance and coloration to L. blackjordii 
and L. campechcinus, so that the three may be readily confused. The three species 
form a group of closely related snappers, having a close resemblance to one another, 
being of a predominating red color, and found chiefly in deep water. They may be 
distinguished by the following analysis of their characters. The present species is 
especially close to campechanus from which it may be separated with difficulty, although 
when two specimens were placed side by side it is evident that they represent two dis- 
tinct species. 
a. Anal fin with 8 soft rays. Scales in 69 to 73 oblique rows above lateral line. Lower limb of 
first gill arch with 15 to 17 gill rakers, including the 5 or 6 rudiments. 3 Scales on anterior 
part of body below lateral line not much larger than posterior scales. Eye in large speci- 
mens comparatively large, approximately 2 in snout. 
b. Snout conspicuously short and compact, rather shorter than maxillary. Head shorter, 2.94 
(in individual 50 centimeters long) to 3.11 (in 72.5-centimeter fish). Scales above lateral 
line markedly smaller than those below, 69 to 71 oblique rows above and 53 to 57 below. 
Gill rakers on lower limb of first gill arch 15, including 5 rudiments. Caudal peduncle deeper, 
3.00 (in 50-centimeter fish) to 2.9 (in 72.5-centimeter fish). Anal spines comparatively 
more slender. Posterior edge of preopercle making a right or slightly acute angle with the 
lower edge. Iris red in life; yellow shades very sparse or absent L. campechanus 
2 In connection with the last statement of Mr. Taylor, it is interesting to note that Poey in his description of (Mesoprion) Lutia- 
nus rosaceus (Ann. Lyc. Nat. Hist. New York, vol. 9, p. 318, 1870) states with respect to that species: “The flesh is hard to cook; 
it swells, twists, and remains hard, though its flavor is not bad.” L. rosaceus is also said to have “ the caudal yellowish toward the 
margin.” This latter species, in view of the characters of its teeth, has been doubtfully regarded to be the same as the muttonfish. 
However, the remarkable coincidence in the character of the meat, which one states that it “twists” and another that it “curls,” 
is significant. Does the name L. rosaceus represent a species distinct from the muttonfish, and is the “yellowtail” of Pensacola 
partly this species? This is a problem which should receive attention in future studies of the snappers oflthe Gulf. The two speci- 
mens sent by Mr. Taylor have the teeth on the vomer and tongue like those described for L. vivanus. Very little is really known 
regarding the deep-water snappers, although of so much economic importance. One great drawback to a comprehensive study of 
these fishes is their large size. Descriptions are based, therefore, on too few preserved examples, or on market fish where conditions 
are not favorable for close comparative study. 
3 The number of gill rakers in the American species of Lutianus generally shows remarkably little intraspeeific variation if the 
“rudiments” are included in the count. These so-called rudiments in the very young are really very.short gill rakers; and, while 
they are rather abruptly shorter than the posterior gill rakers, no consistent line may be drawn between them. As the fish grows 
older the anterior short ones are gradually reduced and become “rudiments” or "tubercles.” Since this process is gradual up until 
a certain length, conflicting results will be obtained when the rudiments are not included in the count. 
