PROCEEDINGS OF UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM. 325 NOTE OX A IVEW FI.AT-FISH (LEPIDOPSETTA ISOI.EPIS) FOVND IN THE MARKETS OF SAN FRANCISCO. By \¥. ]\. LOCKlWGTOi^. In the review of the Pleuronectidse of San Francisco (Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus. 1879, G9-108), a species belonging-to the genus Lepidopsetta (GUI) is described as identical with the Platichthys umhrosus of Girard (Pac. Eail. Rep., x, 149, 1857). At the epoch when this description was writ-ten, as well as on previous occasions when a comparison was instituted between this species and the description of Girard above referred to, several discrepancies were noted, yet it was not supposed possible that that author had redescribed one of Dr. Ayres's species when the de-scription of the latter was accessible to him. Such, however, as first pointed out by Dr. Gill, turns out to be the case, and Platichthys ^lmhros^(s (Grd.) must sink into a synonym of Lepidopsetta hilineata (xVyres), while the form described by me as L. umbrosa needs renaming. The synonymy of the two species will be as follows: Lepidopsetta biliueata. riatcssa hiUtuata Ayres, Proc. Cal. Acad. Nat. Sci., i, 40, Platichthys itmhrosus Grd., Pac. Eail. Rc])., x, l855-'57. 149. Lepidopsetta ViUneata Gill, Proc. Phil. Acad. Nat. Sci. Lepidopsetta umbrosa Gill, Proc. Phil. Acad. Nat. Sci. Lepidopsetta hilineata Locku., Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus. 1879, 103. Lepidopsetta isolepis sp. nov. Lepidopsetta nmirosa Lockn., Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus. 1879, 106. This Species is not closely related to L. hilineata. Its ctenoid scales, almost uniform over the head and body, its nearly straight lateral line, its smaller eyes, with a broader, flattish interorbital space, as well as the differences in the form and the number of fin rays, completely distinguish L. isolepis from L. bilineata. Typical examples are in the United States National Museum. NOTE ON A FORGOTTEN PAPER OF DR. AYRES AND ITS REARINO ON TBE NOmENCEATIJRE OF TQE CA'PRINOID FISHES OF THE SAN FRANCISCO ITIARKKTS. By DATID S. JORDAN. During the infancy of the California Academy of Sciences the reports of its proceedings were published in the Daily Placer Times and Tran-script, a newspaper then issued in San Francisco. In the files of this paper for 1854 occur descriptions of new sjiecies of fishes from the San Francisco markets, by Dr. W. P. Gibbons and Dr. W. O. Ayres. The descriptions of Dr. Gibbons were soon after repub-
BioStor
