SNAPPERS OF GULF OF MEXICO 
273 
LUTIANUS CAMPECHANUS 
This is, apparently, the common red snapper of the Caribbean Sea and is quite 
easily distinguishable from the red snapper of the Gulf of Mexico. Hildebrand and 
Ginsburg (1925) have pointed out the distinctness of the two species, having at the 
time but a single specimen of campechanus. The conclusion of these authors is now 
corroborated by another specimen, kindly sent to the bureau by Mr. Taylor of the 
Warren Fish Co., Pensacola, Fla. The specimen was received in fresh condition, on 
ice. It was one of a lot of 6,000 pounds of the same species obtained at latitude 
16° N., longitude 83° 58' W., on coral bottom, in 35 to 45 fathoms. It agrees closely 
with the other specimen previously described by the foregoing authors as campechanus. 
In view of the comparatively large catch obtained by one crew at a single locality, 
it seems probable that the common red snapper of the Caribbean Sea represents this 
species rather than blackjordii. The present species is readily separable from black- 
jordii when specimens are directly compared; and after one becomes familiar with the 
appearance of the two species and the differentiating structural characters, it is an 
easy matter to identify them. However, it is difficult to formulate well-marked 
differences by which the present species may be separated from vivanus, although the 
two are evidently distinct. The chief differences which the specimens at hand indicate 
are a lesser number of oblique rows of scales below the lateral line; a somewhat 
shorter snout, which may be expressed by the numerical value of the ratio of the eye to 
the snout and the snout to the maxillary; a somewhat deeper caudal peduncle when 
fish of approximately the same size are compared; and one or two less gill rakers on 
the lower limb of the first gill arch, in campechanus. Previous authors who examined 
fresh material emphasize the yellow color of the iris in vivanus. This was also 
strikingly shown in the smaller specimen of vivanus at hand (56 centimeters), but in 
the larger specimen (63 centimeters) the iris was suffused with pink color, which would 
seem to show that in older examples this character loses its usefulness to a certain 
extent. 
NOMENCLATURE AND SYNONYMY 
The references given below, in part at least, seem to belong to this species which 
evidently was quite generally confused with blackjordii and perhaps with other 
species of Lutianus. It is evident that Poey’s original description of campechanus 
was based on a specimen of this species. This author also evidently supposed that 
the common red snapper of the Gulf of Mexico was the same as his species. His 
later references to the “pargo guachinango,” for which he uses the Latin name cam- 
pechanus, may be taken, therefore, to include also blackjordii. Jordan, basing his 
action on the same supposition, placed campechanus in the synonymy of ( aya ) black- 
jordii. However, in view of the data presented here, it seems highly probable that 
the “pargo guachinango” of the Cuban fishermen is a mixture of the two species. 
Poey also had two specimens of snappers, one from Santo Domingo and another 
from the southern coast of Cuba, which he called aya and later changed the name to 
purpureus. He stated that they differed from ( projundus ) vivanus chiefly in having 
a red eye. They were evidently examples of the present species, and these references 
are therefore included here. 
?Acara aya, Marcgrave, Hist. Brasil, p. 167, 1648. (Brasil.) 
Anthias aya, Bloch, Ichthyol. pi. 227, 1797. (Linnean name for Marcgrave’s account.) 
Anthias ruber, Bloch and Schneider, Syst. Ichthy. p. 330, 1801. (Based on Marcgrave’s account.) 
