EVIBLE FISHES OF QUEENSLAND.— OGILBY. 
87 
witli the publication of the second volume of the British ^Museum Catalogue of 
Fishes’' Gunther revived the old error by again associating our species with the 
Zens galUis of Linna;us. This action was taken in direct defiance of the Swedish 
author’s assertion habitat in America,” and of his references to Marcgrave, 
the historian of Brazil a!)out the middle of the seventeenth century, and of 
Patrick Brown, a contemporary of Linmrus, who i>ublished his Civil and 
Natiu’al History of Jamaica” onl}^ two years previously to that of the tenth 
edition of the Systema Natura*.” This deliberate retuim to an already refuted 
error had immediate consequences, resulting in indescribable confusion, the etfects 
of which are still apparent. In 1876 the same author made a notable addition 
to the distribution of the si)ecies, recording it on the authority of Garrett from 
the Hawaiian Archipehjgo in the North i*aeific and the Society Group in the 
South. Tn the same place he makes the earliest announcement of its occurrence 
in Australia — nnd vstrecM sick bis andie XorUkuste Ausiraliens ” — a record 
which ]\laeleay failed to discover. While, however, Giinther always insisted on 
the validity of the two Iiido-Pacific spc'cies, Day in 1865 introduced yet another 
disturbing influenct! to the already too involved history of these fishes, by 
suggesting that A. ciliaris might be only the young of this species. He writes of 
A. ciliaris — Large ones have not been recorded, unless the C, gallus is the 
mature of this species”; and again — The difference between the G, gallus and 
C. ciliaris, if any exists,” etc. The words in themselves were of little importance, 
yet the}^ were destined to have far-reaching results, not the least of which was 
that in 1806 Jordnn and Evermann united the two species under tlie common 
name AlecUs ciliaris, giving among other things as an excuse for their action— 
'' w^e see no reason for doubting that ciliaris is the young of gallus, as has been 
supposed by Br. Bay and others.'’'^ This unfortunate assumption was imme- 
diately accepted as coiTect by most if not ail American ichthyologists who wrote 
on the subject, with the conse(iuence that for eight yeai’s the references to these 
fishes i\Yc so inextricably confustn! that it is almost impossible to disentangle them, 
and give to each its proper api)lication. Nor was this confusion wholly confined 
to America, for Stead in 11)06 \mdcv C. ciliaris figures that fish but writes of its 
congener. In 1907, however, Jordan and Eichardson (1), after comparing 
examples from Formosa with others of the same size from Panama, wrote — 
“ Comparison of adult specimens . . . leaves no doubt that the two are 
distinct species.” 
Uses: — Of its value as a food fish we have but little information, but what 
we have is favorable. Valenciennes, on the authority of Leschenault, says that 
it is good to eat.” Day tells us that on the Malabar Coast it is esteemed as 
food.” Jordan and Evermann consider it a food fish of some importance”; 
while Kent, who calls it the '' diamond-fish,” a name which properly belongs to 
Monodactylus argenieus, remarks that ‘Mt is met with in some abundance north- 
ward from Port Denison, and is very delicate eating.” 
^ The italics are ours. 
