278 
BULLETIN OF THE UNITED STATES FISH COMMISSION. 
After referring to the writings of Bloch, Onvier, Valenciennes, Guichenot, Hol- 
hird, and others who had cited Parra’s work, Poey says: 
As for myself, it will be seen on examination liow mucli I have added to and corrected all that 
has hitherto been done. The opinion of authors has not been given without care. I have compared 
their descriptions with those of Parra, and with actual specimens, having the advantage of working- 
in Havana and of knowing the fish by their popular names. 
In considering the fish now in question, Poey refers to previous attempts to 
assign Parra’s “lija barbnda” to some one of the known species, and cites Bloch,* 
who doubtfully identified it as ^‘BalisteH monoceros L,,” and Hollard,t who referred 
it to his (Hollard’s) Aluterm mujinoms from the East Indies (now also placed in the 
synonymy of A. monoceros). Poey himself, however, regarded the fish as belonging 
to his species, A bf tern which he described as follows in the same journal: 
Individual described, 510 millimeters. It is reinarkahle at first glance for a protul)erance which 
belongs rather to the throat than the chin. Its jielvic region forms a curve, which follows regularly 
the skin of the abdomen. The body is very compressed. The month is small, the snout obtuse. Its 
dei)th is one-third its total length ; the head, taken from the inferior angle of the branchial opening, 
is comprised in it a little more than 5 times. The eye is separated 3 times its diameter from the median 
dorsal line and 6 times from the extremity of the snout. The branchial slit is very oblique, and its 
anterior half iirojects beyond the orbit. The nostrils have two apertures close together, placed one 
before the other, rather near the eye. From what my drawing, by the profile, permits one to believe, the 
teeth would be as in the preceding species. The dorsal spine is slender, not toothed, terminating in a 
fine point, almost straight, turueil backwards; its groove is short; its height is two-thirds the height 
of the body underneath — that is, almost two-thirds of the greatest height of the body; its point of 
attachment is above or a little in advance of the anterior side of the eye. The line of the back rises 
somewhat in a straight line from tliis point. The second dorsal is as much distant from the spine as 
the. Bjiine isT'rom the snout. The anal is almost as much advanced, very little more extended. These 
two fins are a little elevated in front (1| the diameter of the eye) and decrease gradually behind, 
where they iiresent only a third or a fourth of the anterior height. The pectoral is rounded. The 
caudal is at least twice as high as long; it is divided vertically in such a manner as to have its 
posterior edge sinuous — that is, convex in the middle and ending in two sharji points, which advance 
a little less than the couvexity. D. l + IS; A. 51 ; P.14; C. 12. I have not the skin under my obser- 
vation, but my drawing reiiresents the scales formed of several microscopic grains which have not 
yet been viewed rrnder the magnifying glass ; they are soft to the touch. The color is plumbeous, but 
the throat and underneath the belly are whitish. There are on the nape and along the back little 
brown spots. The sides are adorned with very difi'erent markings, sometimes circular, sometimes 
elongated. These marks disappear very soon; that is why Parra has not represented them in his lija 
barbnda, which is the actual species. The eye is golden, with some dark waves. The fins are orange, 
except the caudal, which is a very deep lead color. 
This could not be the Aluterus anginosus of M. Hollard, who has seen many specimens of it in 
the iMuseum of Paris, all from the East Indies. I do not find it cited in the Enumeraiio Piscitim of Dr. 
Bleeker. The individuals described by M. Hollard (Ann. des Sc. Nat., 4th series, vol. 4, p. 11) have 
the dorsal spine short and the caudal rounded. D. 49; A. 53. — (Descriptions des poissons nouvelles 
on pen connues. Loc. cit., pp. 184, 185. Translation.) 
The accouipauyiug illustrations and foregoing descriptions indicate the marked 
differences between the Cuban fish and the Woods Hole specimen. Furthermore) 
Poey’s account applies to a fish that seems to differ from the variously described 
Old World examples of monoceros. Therefore A. (/untlteriana Poey should perhaps be 
recognized as a valid species until an examination of siiecimens from the type locality 
warrants a different course. 
*Systema Ichthyologiae, 1801. t Annales des Sciences Naturelles, 1855. 
