but little thickened, and they pass gradually into the common surface of the plastron. The inferior surface exhibits a delicate grooving, which is parallel to the long axis of the animal; it is most distinct just behind the dermal cross-sutures. This species is about the size of the Pseudemys elegans. The typical specimen is adult. This species differs from the P. elegans in the absence of the median emarginations of the posterior marginal bones; in the absence of notch of the posterior lobe of the plastron at the end of the anal suture; and in the general absence of ridges on the costal bones. The median notch of the anal marginal bone is more pronounced in the existing species. This tortoise was discovered by Russell S. Hill, to whom it is dedicated. ART. XVII.-NOTES ON A COLLECTION OF FISHES FROM THE RIO GRANDE, AT BROWNSVILLE, TEXAS. By DAVID S. JORDAN, M. D. A small jar of fishes collected at Brownsville, Texas, has been lately discovered in overhauling the collections of the United States National Museum. The name of the collector and the date of the collection are lost, and most of the specimens are in poor condition from long neglect; still a study of them has added something to our meagre knowledge of the fish-fauna of the Rio Grande. With one or two exceptions, the species have all been described by Girard, often under several different names, in the Ichthyology of the United States and Mexican Boundary. Family CENTRARCHIDE. Genus LEPIOPOMUS Rafinesque. 1.-LEPIOPOMUS PALLIDUS (Mitchill) Gill & Jordan. 1814-Labrus pallidus MITCHILL, Trans. Lit. and Phil. Soc. N. Y. 407. Lepiopomus pallidus JORDAN (1878), Man. Vert. ed. 2d, 241. 1818-Labrus appendix MITCHILL, Am. Monthly Mag. v. 2, 247. (Not Pomotis appendix DeKay et auct. L. auritus (L.) Raf.) 1831-Pomotis incisor CUV. & VAL. Hist. Nat. des Poissons, vii, 466. Pomotis incisor DEKAY (1842), N. Y. Fauna, Fishes, 33. Pomotis incisor STORER (1846), Synopsis, 293. Pomotis incisor AGASSIZ (1854), Am. Journ. Sci. Arts, 302. Pomotis incisor GIRARD (1858), Pac. R. R. Survey, 24. Pomotis incisor GÜNTHER (1859), Cat. Fishes, i, 259. Ichthelis incisor HOLBROOK (1860), Ich. S. Car. 12. Ichthelis incisor PUTNAM (1863), Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool. i, 6. Lepomis incisor GILL (1864), Am. Journ. Sc. Arts, 93. Lepomis incisor COPE (1865), Proc. Ac. Nat. Sc. Phil. 83. Ichthelis incisor JORDAN (1876), Man. Vert. 235, 317. Ichthelis incisor NELSON (1876), Bull. Ills. Mus. Nat. Hist. 37. Ichthelis incisor JORDAN & COPELAND (1876), Check List, 138. 1831-Pomotis gibbosus CUVIER & VALENCIENNES (1831), Hist. Nat. des Poissons, vii, 467. Pomotis gibbosus STORER (1846), Synopsis Fishes N. A. 293. 1854-Pomotis speciosus BAIRD & GIRARD (1854), Proc. Ac. Nat. Sc. Phil. 24. Pomotis speciosus GIRARD (1858), Pac. R. R. Surv. 23. Pomotis speciosus GÜNTHER (1859), Cat. Fishes Brit. Mus. i, 263. 1854-Lepomis speciosus COPE (1870), Proc. Am. Philos. Soc. Phil. 453. (Excl. syn. P. heros Grd.) Ichthelis incisor var. speciosus JORDAN (1876), Man. Vert. 236. Ichthelis speciosus NELSON (1876), Bull. Ills. Nat. Hist. Soc. 37. 1857-Pomotis luna GIRARD, Proc. Ac. Nat. Sc. Phil. p. · Pomotis luna GIRARD (1858), U. S. Pac. R. R. Surv. x, 22. (Excl. syn. pars.) 1865-Lepomis longispinis COPE, Proc. Ac. Nat. Sc. Phila. 83. Lepomis longispinis COPE (1868), Journ. Ac. Nat. Sc. Phila. 220. 1868-Lepomis megalotis COPE, Journ. Ac. Nat. Sc. Phila. 452. Lepomis megalotis COPE (1870), Proc. Am. Philos. Soc. Phil. 452. 1868-Lepomis ardesiacus COPE, Journ. Ac. Nat. Sc. Phila. 222. Lepomis ardesiacus COPE (1870), Proc. Am. Philos. Soc. 453. 1870-Lepomis purpurascens COPE (1870), Proc. Am. Philos. Soc. 453. A single young specimen of this widely distributed species. There is no evident difference in the size of the spines between Texan and Northern individuals of this species if specimens of the same size are compared. As in other Sunfishes, young individuals have the spines proportionally higher. Genus APOMOTIS Rafinesque. 2.-APOMOTIS CYANELLUS (Rafinesque) Jordan. 1818-Sparus cyanelus RAFINESQUE (1818), Am. Monthly Mag. 353. (Not described.) Chanobryttus cyanellus JORDAN (1876), Bull. Buff. Soc. Nat. Hist. 92. Telipomis cyanellus NELSON (1876), Bull. Ills. Mus. Nat. Hist. 37. 1820-Icthelis melanops RAF. Ich. Oh. 28. Chanobryttus melanops COPE (1865), Proc. Ac. Nat. Sc. Phil. 84. Lepomis melanops COPE (1868), Journ. Ac. Nat. Sc. Phil. 223. Chanobryttus melanops COPE (1870), Proc. Am. Philos. Soc. Phil. 452. Chanobryttus cyanellus var. melanops JORDAN (1876), Man. Vert. 234. 1831-Bryttus punctatus, Cuv. & VAL. Poissons, vii, 347. Bryttus punctatus STORER (1846), Synopsis, 295. Bryttus punctatus GÜNTHER (1859), Cat. Fishes Brit. Mus. i, 259. 1853-Pomotis longulus BAIRD & GIRARD, Proc. Ac. Nat. Sc. Phil. 391. Pomotis longulus BAIRD & GIRARD (1853), Marcy Red R. Expl. 245. -. Calliurus diaphanus GIRARD (1858), Pac. R. R. Surv. x, 13. 1857-Calliurus formosus GIRARD, Proc. Ac. Nat. Sc. Phil. p. Calliurus formosus GIRARD (1858), Pac. R. R. Surv. 14. 1857-Calliurus microps GIRARD, Proc. Ac. Nat. Sc. Phil. p. —. Calliurus microps (1858), Pac. R. R. Surv. 17. Telipomis microps NELSON (1876), Bull. Ills. Mus. Nat. Hist. 37. 1857-Calliurus murinus GIRARD (1857), Proc. Ac. Nat. Sc. Phil. p. -. Calliurus murinus GIRARD (1858), Pac. R. R. Surv. 18. 1864-Bryttus mineopas COPE, Proc. Ac. Nat. Sc. Phil. 84. Lepomis mineopas COPE (1868), Journ. Ac. Nat. Sc. Phil. 224. Several young specimens of this widely diffused species. A very young specimen of some genus unknown to me, apparently Labroid. There are about fifteen spines in the single dorsal fin, and a less number of soft rays. In the anal fin are three stout spines, the second decidedly longest. The lateral line runs very high, concurrent with the back. The teeth are large and conical. The general aspect is sparoid. The specimen is so small that I have not attempted further to ascertain its relations. Family GOBIIDÆ. (?) Genus SEMA Jordan (gen. nov.). 3.-SEMA SIGNIFER Jordan (sp. nov.). A small fish in this collection has puzzled me very much. Its affinities are apparently Gobioid, but it seems to bear little resemblance to any of the current genera of that family, nor am I able, in any of the books accessible to me, to find any account of any fish to which it bears any special resemblance. It is possible that it has been described already in some work with which I am not acquainted, or that its affinities are remote from those species with which I have compared it. After consideration, however, I have thought best to make the species known, even though my knowledge of its structure is incomplete, for the characters of the species are so marked that whoever finds a second speci. men will have no difficulty in identifying it from the present descrip. tion. I shall not attempt at present to separate the generic from the specific characters. The name suggested for the genus is from a, a banner, in allusion to the high fins. Body oblong, moderately elevated, greatly compressed, the depth 33 in length, the caudal peduncle rather deep, the greatest depth of body being opposite the vent, which is midway between the snout and the base of the caudal. The compression of the body in the typespecimen is excessive, but this may be in part due to its soft condition. Head large, 4 in length to the base of the caudal, compressed, nearly circular in outline, the snout extremely gibbous, the interorbital space narrow and almost carinated. Mouth very small, terminal oblique, the maxillary not reaching to the front of the eye; jaws equal when the mouth is closed; teeth, if present, not evident; eye large, longer than snout, about 3 in head; opercular bones rather narrow, with entire edges, the preoperculum forming a broad arc, more nearly horizontal in position than is usual; operculum striated; the head in the typical specimen entirely scaleless. Gill-openings wide, the gill-membranes not much connected below. Scales quite small, not closely imbricated, seemingly partly imbedded in the skin; lateral line obscure, nearly straight, the number of scales included in it not ascertainable. Dorsal fin single, beginning just behind the head, the length of its base just half the length of the fish from snout to base of caudal. It consists of about eight flexible spines, gradually increasing in length backward. There are about fifteen soft rays, which are much higher than the spines, also increasing in height backward. The condition of the specimen renders it impossible to exactly count either soft rays or spines without danger of breaking them. The above count, as well as that of the anal and ventral fins is only an approximation, made by counting the bases of the rays. The last and longest ray of the dorsal is about two-fifths of the length of the fish from the snout to the base of the caudal. The anal fin is a little shorter than the dorsal, and consists of about two spines and some eighteen or twenty soft rays. The form of the fiu is similar to that of the dorsal, and the hinder part of the fin is similarly elevated, the longest rays being about two-fifths as long as the fish. Caudal fin greatly elongated, rounded or lanceolate in outline, produced behind, its length nearly half that of the rest of the fish. Ventral fins thoracic, apparently 1, 5, and apparently united into one. I regret that this important matter cannot be certainly decided. When first examined, the two were united into one lanceolate fin, but in handling they were split apart, apparently not naturally, but the possibility remains that they were merely stuck together by some adhesive substance. At all events, the two were very close together, and the bases still seem to be connected. Pectorals rather narrow, apparently short; the ends, however, broken; their position as in percoid fishes. Colors vanished. In spirits, at present, uniform pale. Length of typical specimen two inches. It is in good condition, every part being present, but like most museum specimens it has become extremely soft. I have not attempted to dissect the fish as I do not wish to destroy or injure it, and I therefore leave for future investigation the determination of its affinities, referring it provisionally to the Gobiida, on the ground of the apparent cohesion of the ventrals. Family CYPRINODONTIDE. Genus HYDRARGYRA Lacépède. 4.-HYDRARGYRA SIMILIS Baird & Girard. 1853-Hydrargyra similis BAIRD & GIRARD, Proc. Ac. Nat. Sc. Phila. 389. Hydrargyra similis GIRARD (1859), U. S. and Mex. Bound. Ichth. 68, pl. 35, f. 1-8. ? Fundulus similis GÜNTHER (1866), Cat. Fishes Brit. Mus. vi, 323. Several small female specimens, stout and full-bodied. They agree closely with Girard's description and figure, but not very well with |