HALIBUT ; FLAT-FISH AND FLOUNDER . 
329 
western side of the Atlantic, and never will be, unless they are introduced 
by artificial means. 4 
From the beginning to the end we encounter the well-known sources of 
confusion—the giving of old-world names to species which resemble in a 
general way the old-world species which bear them, and the unquestion¬ 
ing acceptance of these names as authoritative, by persons who are not 
trained to close discrimination. 
When Boston was occupied by the British during the Revolutionary war, 
the officers of the fleet are said to have been bountifully supplied with 
Turbot, which was caught in the neighborhood of an outer harbor. This 
fact is recorded by Dr. J. V. C. Smith, in his “ Natural History of the 
Fishes of Massachusetts” (Boston, 1833), on the authority of William 
Ladd, esq., of Maine. He also mentions “ a statement of Mr. Parker, 
the conductor of the marine telegraph,” who told him that “ many years 
before, Admirable Sir Isaac Coffin brought out to this country a trawl-net, 
such as is used on the coast of Holland, for taking Sole for the London 
markets, with which he succeeded in capturing that delightful fish in Ips¬ 
wich Bay, which was not before supposed to exist here.” The fishes found 
in this manner were no doubt the common Flat Fishes of Massachusetts 
Bay. The common Flounder, Paralichthys dent at us, taken in Province- 
town water, where it is usually called “ Plaice,” was in 1880 sold in 
Boston under the name “Turbot.” Captain Mackinnon, of the Royal 
Navy, who visited this country in 1850, conceived the idea that Turbot 
ought to be found on the shores of the United States, and took pains to 
search for them with a trawl-net. The nets which he used had been im¬ 
ported ten years before by Mr. Nathan Smith, an American gentleman, 
who had hoped to introduce them, but had never used them. Captain 
Mackinnon tried one net at Newport, Rhode Island, and succeeded in 
taking a number of different kinds of Flat Fish. He carefully refrained, 
however, from pronouncing any one of them to be identical with the Tur¬ 
bot or Sole, though from the vagueness of his language it is evident that 
his ichthyological knowledge was very scanty, and that he was not accus¬ 
tomed to observe the differences between the different species of fishes 
which somewhat resemble each other. His experiences are described at 
length in his book of travels, entitled “Atlantic and Trans-Atlantic 
Sketches, Afloat and Ashore ” (Harper & Bros., New York, 1852, pp. 166- 
170). Capt. C. C. Churchill, U. S. A., who saw the results of Capt. 
