932 FISHES—-CENTRARCHIDA. 
Xystroplites, JORDAN, Bull. U. S. Nat. Mus., x, 1878 (gilli). 
Hclioperca, JORDAN, Ann. N. Y. Lyc. Nat. Hist (pallidus). 
Type, Labrus auritus, L. 
Etymology, lepis, scales; poma, opercle. 
Dorsal fin much more developed than anal, its base twice or more that of the latter 
the soft parts of the two about equal and terminating at the same vertical behind; dor- 
gal spines ten; anal spines three; caudal fin emarginate; mouth moderate or rather 
large, with equal jaws; maxillary with a supplemental bone, which in some species is 
very minute or obsolete; pharyngeal bones with conic teeth which are usually, but not 
always sharp; palatine teeth present or obsolete; no teeth on the tongue or pterygoids; 
gill-rakers comparatively short, sometimes very weak; operculum with a rounded flap 
which is usually more or less elongate. Species of moderate or small size, usually 
brightly colored. The number of species is quite large and there is considerable diver- 
ity of form among them. 
Synonymy.—The synonymy of this genus has been complicated in several ways. In- 
the first place the typical species, Labrus auritus, was very poorly described by Linnzeus, 
so that it can be only identified by circumstautial evidence. The name has been often 
but in my opinion erroneously referred to Eupomotis gibbosus. The genus Lepomis was 
framed in 1819, to include all the Sun-fishes, but the Labrus auritus, L. was expressly 
indicated as its type. Lhe sub-genus Pomotis was proposed to inc!ade this typical 
species and such others as had long opercular flaps. In 1820, Rafinesquye without assign- 
ing any reason changed the name of his genus of Sun-fishes from Lepomis to Ichthelis, and 
transferred the name Lepomis to the Black Bass. It will be evident from the above that 
the name Pomotis and Ichihelis of Rafinesque, being simple synonyms of Lepomis cannot 
be used for any of our genera of Sun-fishes so long as Lepomis is available. A more ex- 
tended study of this group leads me to doubt the propriety of the numerous subdivisions 
of this genus, formerly admitted by me. The following observations of Mr. McKay on 
the genus Lepomis (Proc, U. S. Nat. Mus., 1880, 88), I quote with full eu.dorsement: 
“This genus as understood by me, includes Apomotis, Xenotis, Brytius, Helioperca, 
Aystroplites, and Hupomotis of authors. Apomotis has been separated from Lepomis on 
account of the large size of the supplemental maxillary. On careful comparison, this is 
found to be scarcely larger than in one or two other species of Lepomis It disappears 
by degrees, but seems to exist in all of the species, though so so small as to be inappre- 
ciable. I have even found it present in large specimens of L. pallidus. Its presence in the 
species is only a character of degree, therefore not generic. Till the group had been more 
fully studied, Xenotis was supposed tocontain a largenumber of species, and was separated 
from Lepomis principally for convenience sake, and on the slight character of the feeble 
gill-rakers. By comparison of a very large series of the alleged species from Professor 
Jordan’s collection, I have come to the conclusion that they are all forms of single spe- 
cies (LZ megalotis). The gill-rakers are usually rather more feeble than in the rest of the 
species of Lepomis, but this again is a question of degree. Brytius has been distinguished 
from Lepomis by the presence of palatine teeth. This is also a question of degree and is 
subject to the most perfect gradation. I have found it impossible to retain Xystroplites 
and Hupomotis also, as there is a complete gradation in the character of the pharyngeals, 
between Lepomis proper and Xystroplites, and again between Xystroplites and Hupomotis, 
both as to the width and form of the bones themselves and the form of the teeth.” 
