beyond his predecessors, (1) recognizing, for the first time, the generic identity of the forms described by LeSueur, Cuvier and Valenciennes, and DeKay, (2) retaining for the genus thus enlarged the name Grystes, and (3) recognizing two species as inhabitants of the north; he was, however, less fortunate in his appreciation of their specific relations, (1) his Grystes fasciatus being the small-mouthed form, (2) his "Grystes salmoneus” (as iş evident from the contrasted characters noticed in his comparison of G. fasciatus with it) being the large-mouthed southern form, and (3) his Grystes nigricans being differentiated without statement of reasons and the Centrarchus fasciatus of DeKay identified with it.

At a later period (1854), Prof. Agassiz distinguished specimens of the genus obtained from Huntsville,* Alabama, as Grystes nobilis, which evidently belongs to the large-mouthed type; the brief notice is only comparative, contrasted with the small-mouthed type, and contains no specific peculiarities.

In the same year and month (March, 1854), Messrs. Baird and Girard described specimens of the same type from the "Rio Frio and Rio Nueces, Texas," under the name Grystes nuecensis. This form was subsequently described in greater detail and illustrated by Dr. Charles Girard, in the Report on the Mexican boundary Survey.

In 1857, Dr. Theodatus Garlick,‡ of Cleveland, Ohio, in a treatise on the propagation of fish, described and published rough woodcut figures of the two forms of the genus: (1) the small-mouthed species under the name “Grystes nigricans; or black bass;" (2) the other, as a new species, designated "Grystes megastoma; or large-mouth

and Animals, compared with those of other and similar regions.... Boston; 1850. (p. 295.)

* AGASSIZ (Louis). Notice of a collection of Fishes from the southern bend of the Tennessee River, Alabama... <The American Journal of Science and Arts, second series. Vol. xvii.... 1854. [pp. 297-308; 353-365-Grystes, pp. 297, 298].

† BAIRD (Spencer Fullerton) and Charles GIRARD. Descriptions of a new species of Fishes collected in Texas, New Mexico, and Sonora, by Mr. John H. Clark, on the U. S. and Mexican Boundary Survey, and in Texas by Capt. Stewart Van Vliet, U. S. A.. .<Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. Vol. vii, 1854, 1855. [pp. 24-29; Grystes, p. 25].

GARLICK (Theodatus). A treatise on the Artificial Propagation of certain kinds of Fish, with the descriptions of such kinds as are the most suitable for pisciculture.... Cleveland, Tho. Brown, publisher, Ohio Farmer office, 1857. [12mo, 142 pp. Grystes, pp. 105-110.]

black bass."* The species are quite well distinguished by the size of the mouth and the comparative size of the scales: his Grystes nigricans is, however, not the true Grystes nigricans (Huro nigricans, Cuv. & Val.), as that name really belongs to his Grystes megastoma.

In 1859, Dr. Günther† described specimens of the small-mouthed species under the name Grystes salmoides, and first restricted the genus to that species (having removed the Australian species as the type of a new genus-Oligorus). Having overlooked the rectifications by Prof. Agassiz, he continued the errors of his predecessors, admitting as nominal species (1) Huro nigricans, (2) Centrarchus fasciatus, and (3) Centrarchus obscurus, and also the same species as doubtful forms (in foot-notes) of Grystes, i. e., G. nuecensis and G. fasciatus.

For the present, the notices and descriptions of the several forms of the genus by other authors may be passed over in silence, as they do not involve any questions of nomenclature. It may be added, however, (1) that the author had long recognized the existence and differences of the two species of the genus, one under the name Micropterus achigan, the other as Micropterus nigricans, and (2) that Prof. Cope, under the names Micropterus fasciatus (which he attributed to the present author through some misapprehension) and Micropterus nigricans has signalized the same species from widely distant regions (e. g., Michigan, Virginia, North Carolina), and has evidently understood their relations.

Analysis of all the published descriptions and comparison with the fishes themselves, led to the following conclusions:

SECTION 1.-MORPHOLOGICAL.

After an examination and comparison with each other of specimens from the great lakes (Champlain to Michigan), the states of New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Missouri, Tennessee, Alabama, Texas, Wisconsin, West Virginia, Virginia, North

"This fish has been identified with the common black bass (Grystes fasciatus), but is by no means the same fish, differing in many respects, both in its habits and physical structure, and has not been described in any work on American fishes, so far as I can learn " (op. cit. p. 108).

† GUNTHER (Albert). Catalogue of the Acanthopterygian Fishes in the Collection of the British Museum, ... Vol. i, ... London,... 1859 [pp. 252-255].

and South Carolina, and Georgia, no differences could be found much, if any greater, than such as could be detected among numerous individuals from any given locality. There are differences resulting from age and condition; the fins may be (slightly) more or less developed, and the colors may be more or less intense, but no deviations have been found, from the ordinary standard, of such a character as at all to compare, for example, with the differences between the large-mouthed and small-mouthed forms, or to indicate that there are any specific differences among the small-mouthed or large-mouthed forms. The natural course, then, appears to be to recognize only the two forms whose differences are so obvious as species, and—at least till differences may be detected, of which none have yet been foundto consider all the other forms, and from all localities, however distant they may be, as representatives or varieties of those species.

SECTION 2.-NOMENCLATURE.

A critical analysis of the numerous notices and descriptions of the forms of the genus indicates that the differences between the respective species have been very imperfectly apprehended, and mostly confined to the size of the mouth and in vague terms to the size (comparatively large or small) of the scales: most of the other differences signalized are either non-existent or individual and dependent on the condition of the specimens. The charge of vagueness and insufficiency of diagnosis is especially applicable to the first descriptions of species of the genus; guided, however, by a knowledge of the geographical distribution of the genus and hints furnished by the radial formulas, etc., it may be safely concluded, (1) that most of the names referred to in the historical introduction may be relegated to the synonymy of the small-mouthed species; (2) that the first name applied to that species was Labrus salmoides ; (3) that only the names Huro nigricans, (and most of its derivatives), Grystes megastoma, Grystes nobilis, and Dioplites nuecensis belong to the large-mouthed species; (4) that the name nigricans is therefore the first specific term applicable to it; (5) that the name Micropterus was the first applied to the genus; and (6) that therefore, if we only take into consideration the priority of the names (irrespective of the applicability or erroneousness of the description), and combine the first specific names applied to the respective species with the first

generic name given to a representative of the genus, the two species should be designated as (a) Micropterus salmoides, the small-mouthed black bass, and (b) Micropterus nigricans,[*] the large-mouthed black bass.

In 1873, Professor Gill traced back the large-mouthed Black Bass only to Huro nigricans Cuv. & Val., and named it Micropterus nigricans (C. & V.) Gill, as shown in the foregoing review.

But in 1874, Professor G. Brown Goode, while collecting in Florida, found this species exceedingly abundant, and the only species of the Black Bass represented in that State; consequently, in 1876, he restored the name bestowed on this species, from the same locality, by Le Sueur, in 1822 (Cichla floridana), and in accordance with the law of priority, called it Micropterus floridanus (Le Sueur) Goode.

In the following year (1877), however, Professor Jordan found that the same species was very numerous in the tributaries of the Ohio River, in Kentucky, where Rafinesque fished in 1818-20, and after a thorough investigation, he and Prof. Gill identified this species as Lepomis pallida Raf.; whereupon, in obedience to the same law of precedence, they gave to it its present name, Micropterus pallidus (Raf.) Gill and Jordan; which, by the way, is as appropriate as all other synonyms are incongruous, and which might be expected from its having been the name by which the species was designated by a naturalist who took his specimens, alive and kicking, from nature's book.†

*Profs. Gill and Jordan subsequently substituted Micropterus pallidus for Micropterus nigricans, for reasons which will appear later in this chapter.J. A. H.

"In further justification of the opinions here advanced, it may be

In order to make it perfectly clear why this change of name was considered necessary, I can not do better than to reproduce the following characteristic communication from the pen of Prof. David S. Jordan to the anglers of America:-*

Since the publication of the name Micropterus pallidus (Raf.), Gill and Jordan, as a substitute for Micropterus nigricans for the scientific name of the large-mouthed Black Bass, I have received numerous congratulations, verbal and written, from brother fishermen on the appropriateness of the name "selected," and I presume that my colleague in this matter, Professor Gill, has had a similar experience. Lately, a correspondent of FOREST AND STREAM suggests that the name Micropterus salmoides be likewise "stamped out" to make room for some more appropriate appellation. timely, therefore, that we should "rise and explain."

It seems

The name Micropterus pallidus is not a name of our own selection, but a name which by the laws of scientific nomenclature we are bound to use. By the operation of these laws every genus must bear the oldest (generic) name bestowed on any of its members, unless this name has been previously used for something else, or is glaringly false (not simply irrelevant or inappropriate), or is otherwise ineligible; every species must bear the first (specific) name

proper for me to state that I had the pleasure of M. Rafinesque's society, during the three years of my official residence in Sicily, from 1807 to 1810, and again in 1812, when we were both at Palermo, prosecuting our botanical and ichthyological researches together. . . M. Rafinesque, unfortunately, was unable to publish more than a synopsis of his ichthyological discoveries; and his figures, being very slight, are often not calculated to clear up those doubts which the brevity of his descriptions sometimes creates; nevertheless, to one who examines the species on the spot, in a fresh state, there are few which may not be identified. M. Cuvier often asserts that all M. Rafinesque's species were described from preserved specimens; but this is an error-they were all taken from the life."-SWAINSON, Nat. Hist. and Class. of Fishes, I, 62, 1838.

Scientific Names of the Black Bass. By David S. Jordan, M. D. FOREST AND STREAM, XI, 1878, p. 340.