^1- CCf 'M^i Il^WS 6C mE^ CC2 c fe Km ra f\ KHXC® £1 ^□aGEP fi ^1 svc8T '7 ZOOLOGICA SCIENTIFIC CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE NEW YORK ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY VOLUME XVIII JUNE, 1934—1934, AUGUST Numbers 1-3 Inclusive THE ZOOLOGICAL PARK, NEW YORK HfUJ fork Znologiral g>ortPtg General Office: 101 Park Avenue, New Y'ork City President, Madison Grant Honorary President, Henry Fairfield Osborn Vice-Presidents, W. Redmond Cross and Kermit Roosevelt Chairman, Executive Committee, Madison Grant Treasurer, Cornelius R. Agnew Secretary, Henry Fairfield Osborn, Jr. i@oarb of ciatfg of 1936 Madison Grant, Lewis R. Morris, Archer M. Huntington, George D, Pratt,* Cornelius R. Agnew, Harrison Williams, Marshall Field, Ogden L. Mills, Vincent Astor, C. Suydam Cutting, Childs Frick, Alfred Ely Clagg of 1937 George Bird Grinnell, Frederic C. Walcott, George C. Clark, W. Redmond Cross, Henry Fairfield Osborn, Jr., George Gordon Battle, Bayard Dominick, Anson W. Hard, Robert Gordon McKay, Kermit Roosevelt, Grafton H. Pyne, John M. Schiff Class of 1938 Henry Fairfield Osborn, Robert S. Brewster, Edward S. Harkness, Edwin Thorne, Irving K. Taylor, Harry Payne Bingham, Landon K. Thorne, J. Watson Webb, Oliver D. Filley, De Forest Grant, H. de B. Parsons,* George F. Baker Scientific Staff W. Reid Blair, Director of the Zoological Park William T. Hornaday, Director Emeritus Charles H. Townsend, Director of the Aquarium C. M. Breder, Jr., Assistant Director, Aquarium Raymond L. Ditmars, Curator of Mammals and Reptiles William Beebe, Honorary Curator of Birds and Director of Department of Tropical Research Lee S. Crandall, Curator of Birds H. C. Raven, Prosector Charles V. Noback, Veterinarian Claude W. Leister, Ass’t to the Director and Curator, Educational Activities Edward R. Osterndorff, Photographer William Bridges, Editor and Curator of Publications €bitorial Committee Madison Grant, Chairman W. Reid Blair Charles H. Townsend William Beebe George Bird Grinnell William Bridges *Deceased Zoologica, Volume XVIII, Numbers 1-3 TITLES OF PAPERS PAGE 1 — An Experimental Study of the Reproductive Habits and Life History of the Cichlid Fish, Aequidens latifrons (Steindachner) . . . .Breder 1 2— The Fur Seal of the Galapagos Islands Townsend 43 3^ — Ecology of an Oceanic Fresh-water Lake, Andros Island, Bahamas, with Special Reference to its Fishes Breder 57 111 Zoologica, Volume XVIII, Numbers 1-S LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS AN EXPERIMENTAL STUDY OF THE REPRODUCTIVE HABITS AND LIFE HISTORY OF THE CICHLID FISH, AEQUIDENS LATIFRONS (STEINDACHNER) Figures 1 to 14 inclusive PAGE Fig. 1. The excavating habits of Aequidens 29 Fig. 2. Egg laying of Aequidens 30 Fig. 3. A. Diagram of method employed in shifting the eggs laid on an especially made cement block in such a fashion that the parents could not see the action; B. Diagram of objects used in the study of tropisms of juvenile Aequidens; C. Diagram of streaming movements of young fish in a small aquarium 31 Fig. 4. A typical pair of adult Aequidens latifrons 32 Fig. 5. Two typical postures of Aequidens in spawning 33 Fig. 6. A. Aequidens near the end of a spawning; B. Male Aequidens fanning water over eggs, with female approaching to relieve him 34 Fig. 7. A. Eggs on top of the cement block; B. Eggs on the side of the cement block 35 Fig. 8. A. Eggs on a round cement block; B. Eggs on a white rock; C. Eggs on a black glass; D. The newly hatched young on the white rock 36 Fig. 9. A. Both male and female incubating simultaneously; B. The same pair defending their eggs against an intruding hand 37 Fig. 10. A. The male of Fig. 9 incubating and wiping the eggs with his ventral fins; B. The female of Fig. 9 excavating a hole for the reception of the young about to hatch 38 Fig. 11. A. A male Aequidens gathering adventurous young, to return them to the brood shown in the background; B. Young Aequidens at the stage that they usually begin to escape from parental solicitude 39 Fig. 12. Reactions of juvenile Aequidens to a moving dark object in re- lation to their negative heliotropism 40 Fig. 13. A. Aequidens fanning eggs on a black glass aquarium partition; B. Aquaria A. and B. of Fig. 1 showing the tapping device 41 Fig. 14. A. A lone male Aequidens in the process of robbing the parents of their brood; B. and C. Later, when the lone male actually had more young than the parents 42 V VI Illustrations THE FUR SEAL OF THE GALAPAGOS ISLANDS Figures 15 to 25 inclusive Fig. 15. Galapagos fur seal, Arctocephalus galapagoensis Heller. Adult male 44 Fig. 16. Arctocephalus galapagoensis Heller. Galapagos Islands. 1933. Adult male 48 Fig. 17. Arctocephalus galapagoensis Heller. Galapagos Islands. 1933. Adult male 50 Fig. 18. Arctocephalus galapagoensis Heller. Galapagos Islands. 1933. Adult male 51 Fig. 19. Galapagos fur seal, Arctocephalus galapagoensis Heller. Adult male, young male, female and pup 52 Fig. 20. Galapagos fur seal, Arctocephalus galapagoensis Heller. Adult male 53 Fig. 21. Galapagos fur seal, Arctocephalus galapagoensis Heller. Adult male, female and young male 54 Fig. 22. Galapagos fur seal, Arctocephalus galapagoensis Heller. Adult female and young 55 Fig. 23. Fur seals, Arctocephalus capensis, in East London Aquarium, South Africa ' 55 Fig. 24. 'Northern fur seal, Callorhinus alascanus. Adult male 56 Fig. 25. California fur seal, Arctocephalus townsendi Merriam. Adult male 56 ECOLOGY OF AN OCEANIC FRESH-WATER LAKE, ANDROS ISLAND, BAHAMAS, WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO ITS FISHES Figures 26 to 35 inclusive Fig. 26. Chart of Andros Island showing known and reported fresh water 60 Fig. 27. The densest stand of trees encountered in the Lake Forsyth region 62 Fig. 28. Lake Forsyth, showing a typical stretch of shore line, including the expedition’s camp, as well as one of the constantly attending buzzards 64 Fig. 29. Flats of partially dried marl, studded with straggling man- groves, are not uncommon about Lake Forsyth and repre- sent the extent of the enlarged lake during times of high water 66 Fig. 30. The Lake Forsyth region 67 Fig. 31. Cyprinodon baconi Breder 69 Fig. 32. Str ongylur a notata for sythia Breder 70 Fig. 33. Lophogobius androsensis Breder 71 Fig. 34. Gambusia hubbsi Breder 74 Fig. 35. Aquarium set up to simulate the Lake Forsyth water condition 80 ZOOLOGICA SCIENTIFIC CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE NEW YORK ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY VOLUME XVIII. NUMBER 1 AN EXPERIMENTAL STUDY OF THE REPRODUCTIVE HABITS AND LIFE HISTORY OF THE CICHLID FISH, AEQUIDENS LATIFRONS (Steindachner) By C. M. Breder, Jr. New. York AquariuCm PUBLISHED BY THE SOCIETY THE ZOOLOGICAL PARK, NEW YORK June, 1934 jBeto |9or& Zoolosital ^ottet}> General Office; 101 Park Avenue, New York City President, Madison Grant; Honorary President, Henry Fairfield Osborn ; Vice-Presidents, W. Redmond Cross and Kermit Roosevelt; Chairman, Executive Committee, Madison Grant; Treasurer, Cornelius R. Agnew; Secretary, William White Niles Jlicarb of Clasfs of 1935 Henry Fairfield Osborn, Robert S. Brewster, Edward S. Harkness, Edwin Thorne, Irving K. Taylor, Harry Payne Bingham, Landon K. Thorne, J. Watson Webb, Oliver D. Filley, De Forest Grant, H. de B. Parsons, George F. Baker Cla£(si of 1936 Madison Grant, Wm. White Niles, Lewis R. Morris, Archer M. Huntington, George D. Pratt, Cornelius R. Agnew, Harrison Williams, Marshall Field, Ogden L. Mills, Vincent Astor, C. SuYDAM Cutting, Childs Frick aliases of 1937 George Bird Grinnell, Frederic C. Walcott, George C. Clark, W. Redmond Cross, Henry Fairfield Osborn, Jr., George Gordon Battle, Bayard Dominick, Anson W. Hard, Robert Gordon McKay, Kermit Roosevelt, Grafton H. Pyne, John M. Schiff ^cienttfic ^taff W. Reid Blair, Director of the Zoological Park; William T. Hornaday, Director Emeritus; Charles H. Townsend, Director of the Aquxirium; C. M. Breder, Jr., Assistant Director Aqua/rium; Raymond L. Ditmars, Curator of Mammals and Reptiles; William Beebe, Honorary Curator of Birds and Director of Department of Tropical Research; Lee S. Crandall, Curator of Birds; H. C. Raven, Prosector; Charles V. Noback, Veterinarian; Claude W. Leister, AssH to the Director and Curator, Educational Activities Elwin R. Sanborn, Editor Cbitorial Committee Madison Grant, Chairman; W. Reid Blair Charles H. Townsend William Beebe George Bird Grinnell Elwin R. Sanborn, Secretary, Zoologica, Vol. XVIII, No. 1 AN EXPERIMENTAL STUDY OF THE REPRODUCTIVE HABITS AND LIFE HISTORY OF THE CICHLID FISH, AEQUIDENS LATIFRONS (Steindachner) By C. M. Breder, Jr. New York Aquarium Introduction Although the reproductive habits of a large number of cich- lid fishes have been described in various publications, the bulk of them have appeared in journals devoted to home aquaria and for most part are uncritical and concerned entirely with fish cultural interests. These fishes, v^ith their highly specialized reproductive behavior, nevertheless recommend themselves strongly to the experimentalist. The present contribution is an attempt to analyze the more evident and basic of the elements involved in the breeding habits and life history of one member of the family Cichlidae, namely, Aequidens latifrons (Stein- dachner) . Although this species is well known to aquarists and is mentioned in practically every list of small fishes, the writer has been unable to find a single paper devoted to a critical study of the behavior of this fish. Most briefly describe the aquarium habits of A. coeruleopunctata or latifrons and are essentially in agreement with the present studies in the general aspects. Engmann (1907) gives the most elaborate early discussion. The others, largely short notes, are not of sufficient bearing on the present study to warrant inclusion in the bibliography. Most recently, Schoenebeck (1933) considers the entire family, at considerable length, from the aquarists" viewpoint. Coates (1932) discusses in general terms the behavior of the parents of the fishes used for the present series of experiments. As is well known, the cichlids either attach their eggs to some solid support and guard them, or carry them about in the mouth. The first and most common method is certainly the most 1 2 Zoologica: N, Y, Zoological Society [XVIII ; 1 primitive. The egg-carrying habits of such genera as Haploch- romis and Tilapia can only be considered a specialized develop- ment, as will be subsequently shown. Aside from this difference there is no outstanding change from one species to another in each group, so far as known, all following a general pattern with minor variations. The species considered herewith may serve as a typical representative of the more primitive group. The fishes on which these studies were made are the aquar- ium-bred offspring of some specimens collected in 1931 by Mr. A. Eisinger at Barranquilla, Colombia. These fishes were brought to the New York Aquarium while still very small and as they grew up in aquaria their behavior appeared to be entirely normal, especially as compared with field observations made in 1924 on the questionably distinct Aequidens coeruleopunctatus (Kner and Steindachner) in Panama. Such details that could be seen under field conditions agree closely with those studied subsequently in the laboratory. Throughout the laboratory studies, helpful assis- tance was rendered by C. W. Coates of the Aquarium staff. The photographs were all made by S. C. Dunton, also of the Aquar- ium, excepting Figs. 5, 6A and 8A which are the author's. The following sections discussing the details of behavior are -^presented, so far as possible, in chronological order, beginning with the young fish just after they have escaped the parental influence. Part of this is naturally of the simple observational procedure but is reinforced wherever possible by definite experi- mental work, which is so stated and explained at its place of occurrence, together with such discussional remarks that may pertain. Habits of the Young Fish When the young fish attain a sufficient size, the juvenile schooling reaction disappears and is replaced by some centrifu- gal influence causing the individuals to scatter. They then no longer seek one another's company and all comers appear to be unwelcome. At this time fighting appears but usually proceeds little beyond a chase and a single nip. Concomitantly with this change in behavior, or a little prior to it, the adult pattern and 1934] Breder: Reproduction of Aequidens 3 coloration begin to appear, so there is reason to suppose that these changes in behavior are basically dependent on the develop- ing gonads, or at least on changes in the endocrine complex fore- shadowing sexual maturity. As the parent fish in a state of nature may be seen in attend- ance on fishes at least 30 mm. long, and maturity is reached under such circumstances at a length of about 70 mm., it follows that the time between the schooling habit period and the full development of the adult behavior is not long and would be, pre- sumptively, an abrupt rather than a gradual one.^ This is fully borne out by aquarium observations. In fact in the relatively close confines of an aquarium, it is sometimes difficult to decide when the juvenile school has broken up and courtship has begun. Maturity not infrequently occurs at smaller sizes in aquaria so that some individuals of one brood may actually be breeding while less precocious ones still show the last remnants of the juvenile schooling habit. A typical adult pair is illustrated in Fig. 4, and the young, at about the time they escape the parental solicitude but before they begin to take on adult colora- tion, in aquarium-reared material, are shown in Fig. IIB. Habits of the Adult Fish The behavior of the non-breeding but fully mature fish is very definite and all of its characteristics have been fore- shadowed in the later stages of the family school. With the com- plete disappearance of the latter the fishes tend to become solitary and will fight, sometimes disastrously, with all of their own kind including both sexes, and not infrequently with other species, especially if they somewhat resemble themselves. Crowding em- phasizes the fighting reaction to such an extent that the quarrels may almost be considered a direct function of the size of the aquarium up to a certain point beyond which the crowding seems to inhibit fighting on the basis of confusion. This fact is readily understood when considered in the light of the known behavior of a considerable variety of fishes. It is naturally evident chiefly in fishes that display a non-schooling reaction. Many such fishes ^ Based on field observation of Aequidens coeruleopunctatus. See Breder (1927). 4 Zoologica: N, Y, Zoological Society [XVIII; 1 under feral conditions establish a kind of property right about some retreat or area, and join battle with any intruder that may so much as swim near the site. This behavior is especially notable about coral reefs where such a variety as Xyrichthys, Abudefduf, Pomacentrus^ and Gnathypo^s may serve as illustra- tions, although such behavior may be found in other localities, both fresh and salt. In some species it appears only as a part of the reproductive behavior and then relates only to the nest area (e.g. Lepomis, Boleosoma, Cyclopterus and Ameiurus). The behavior in general terms appears to be analogous to the well known breeding and feeding areas of birds, especially as fighting does not normally occur in ‘‘neutral” territory. Even if two fish go for the same piece of food, the loser simply retreats. In the present species this phenomenon becomes more and more prominent with the development of the gonads. It so happens that the regions in which Aequidens lives are subiected to rather protracted dry seasons. It is consequently not uncommon, at times, for the fishes to become concentrated in pools in the stream beds to an annoying degree (See Breder, 1927). Of course sometimes the pools do completely dry, with the result that fivshes such as Aequidens expire along with others not able to respire atmospheric oxygen, move overland, or find protection by some such specialized means. Up to a certain point of concentration it is clearly valuable to the survivors to have thei> numbers reduced, which function Aeauidens performs with much vigor. However, it is also evident that if the evaporation proceeds at a pace with which the killing off cannot keep up, the amount and number of dead fishes would onlv serve to hasten the death of all by their polluting effect. It might be thought that conditions as above are unlikely, and that the killing of excess fi^ihes could always far outstrip desiccation. Such is not the case because the fights staged by Aequidens are not rapid affairs but usually take several days, even in an aquarium, to come to a fatal cb’max. Then, too. evaporation in the neo-tropical regions is not infrequently rapid, both from the surface and by soaking into the thirsty soil. ^ These three forms have also been observed in the New York Aquarium where they will fight excessively if present beyond some critical concentration. See Breder and Coates (1933) for details regarding: Pomacentrus. 1934] Breder: Reproduction of Aequidens 5 Breder and Coates (1932) showed that in Lehistes the eating of newly born young is a direct coefficient of crowding. This fish, which may be thought of, relatively, as producing a continual stream of offspring, living in a large school can well cope with the population problem in this manner. Aequidens^ on the other hand, producing comparatively occasional broods and not in schools, and protecting the young fish by means of an elaborate behavior, cannot control population by simple, direct infanticide but has recourse to adult destruction as previously outlined. Stating it another way these two reproductively different species differ in their solution of the population problem in accordance with their methods of procreation; Lehistes under crowding, simply eating the young as fast as they are born, and Aequidens fighting to kill off too near neighbors and then resting as a group, when such would be fatal, awaiting their doom or release accord- ing to the fortunes of weather. The physiological cause of this reverse in the attitude of Aequidens towards their companions has become clear as a result of analyzing the conditions under which they do and do not fight. Below a temperature of 22° C. fighting becomes less frequent, and at 20° C. stops altogether. Between a range of pH 6.0 to 7.3 there seems to be no clear relationship to that measure except so far as the amount of free carbon dioxide modifies it. When the concentration of CO2 is less than about 0.90 mM fighting gen- erally occurs. When above that it generally ceases and at 2.00 mM it stops altogether, but suffocation does not commence to evidence itself before over 3.00 mM is reached. While the exact- ness of the measure cannot be pressed too far because of the difficulty of determining the actual ‘'end point’" of such a reaction as “fighting,” it may be noted that at a temperature of 26° fighting stopped at 0.42 mM CO2, whereas at a temperature of 21.5° it continued at a concentration of 0.82 mM CO2. Typical readings are given in Table I. Since low temperatures are not involved in dry season pools, it follows that the CO2 concentra- tion determines the interesting change of attitude under crowd- ing that may have a distinct survival value in a state of nature. In addition to taking some locality for their own, usually a corner of an aquarium, Aequidens goes to some trouble in modi- 6 Zoologica: N. Y, Zoological Society [XVIII; 1 lying it to suit. A hole is generally excavated in the sand, or if that is covered with a sufficiently thick layer of detritus the latter only is removed. This has generally been considered only as part of the breeding behavior, in aquarium literature, and although the matter of hole digging does appear again in that connection, the following evidence demonstrates that the excava- tion of holes is primarily associated with the establishment of a retreat and is not an integral part of the reproductive habits. Four compartments were arranged, as indicated in Fig. 1, to provide for four male fishes. A detailed consideration of this illustration and its explanatory legend shows distinctly that these fishes usually dig excavations in the most protected parts of the aquarium. After fifteen days of being left alone, with only nominal disturbance, all four fish excavated holes along the back and two along the front as well (Fig. 1-^1), On smoothing out the sand, two dug where they had before, and one in a new place, although one had the choice of a ready-made hole (Fig. 1-2), Again on smoothing the sand and protecting the sides all around, each fish accepted the “artificiaF' retreat, although only one was in the original place (Fig. 1-^). On removing the cover one, fish A, went back to its original location (Fig. 1-^). A female was next placed with the male B. No further nest building occurred there but C, which could see these two fish, dug a hole farthest from them diagonal to their nest. Females also dig holes. This one, removed to a circular jar, dug in the center. A dark card and a light one were placed on either side of the tank. Then a hole was dug nearest the dark card. An introduced male in- duced no further excavation. This experiment was used as a check on numerous observations and establishes that Aequidens of both sexes digs retreats adjacent to dark surfaces and that these lack association with reproductive activity, since some of the fishes were not in breeding condition. Further, there is a strong tendency to return to the same spot for building a retreat if a conditioning has once been established and if there is none, such as in the case of a fish newly placed in an aquarium, there is a general acceptance of existing retreats even if they are not in what might be considered the most acceptable position. Dis- satisfaction with an aquarium appears to stimulate continual 1934] Breder: Reproduction of Aequidens 7 digging as a response to much disturbance, such as too great activity in sight of the fishes, especially if the aquarium is very small. In one such case, in a small exhibition tank of the New York Aquarium, the fish in question moved all of the sand from one back corner so that he could scarcely be seen. Further work would eventually cut the excavation through to the front glass. When this happened he would begin all over at the opposite end and repeat. This went on as a daily performance until the fish was moved to more commodious quarters. Mating The details of sex recognition may not be altogether evident but would seem to be peculiarly simple. As the reproductive urge begins to make itself felt the males, at least, become more active and make forays farther and farther from their retreat, accom- panied by an ever brightening of the coloration. Sexual dimor- phism is not great in this species. Aside from somewhat longer anal and dorsal filaments and slightly more brilliant colors, there is little to distinguish the sexes. Even to this there are excep- tions, so that not infrequently a fish taken to be of one sex, by comparison with its tank mates, sometimes turns out to actually be the other. Unless there is some chemical differentiation that we cannot readily determine, it is doubtful if sex is really dis- tinguished by ordinary sensory perception. It would seem that the reaction between any two fishes is identical, subsequent be- havior leading to fighting ordinarily, or to reproduction if both specimens are properly sexed and physiologically ready for spawning. When two fishes approach they normally line up for fighting purposes. This may be head-on with mouths open, or side by side, head to tail, when a peculiar rocking motion on the part of one or both is indulged in. Such activity usually results in torn fins of the smaller of the two. This is true of two males, or a male and a non-breeding female. Two females have not been seen to maul one another in this manner. All or part of the above also takes place even when spawn- ing is subsequent so that the female or sometimes the male, or both, may spawn with the fins torn. It seems that when a female is 8 Zoologica: N. Y. Zoological Society [XVIII; 1 ready to spawn she does not retreat as far, or at least is not completely routed. As spawning becomes more imminent the side to side position is assumed with increasing frequency and less actual fighting takes place. Finally there comes a time when the female in such a position gives a peculiar quiver to her dorsal and anal fins, which is not easily described in detail. This seems to be a signal of impending spawning and fighting rarely occurs after it. An item for which no explanation is offered is that after spawning has once occurred the pair seldom fight again, but generally live in peace spawning repeatedly thereafter. The fish never leave one another for any great distance, and much time is spent apparently searching for a place to deposit the eggs. This is usually a rock that is cleaned by fanning away any detri- tus that may be present, and picking off any larger object with the mouth. In an aquarium, in lieu of a suitable rock, the glass walls may be used although an opaque surface is preferred. Ex- perimentally, a glass painted black on the reverse side will be selected in preference to a transparent piece. If there is only a thin layer of sand a spot may be cleared free of this cover but holes are not dug for this purpose. A considerable variety of sur- faces were presented at one time or another which resulted in the conclusion that a large variety of factors enter into the choice of a site. A dark rock will be selected in preference to a light one, but any rock will be picked in preference to any glass. This may have to do with the texture of the surface. A rectangular cement “box'’ with a partition near one end was constructed to give a variety of surfaces. The first spawning was on top, as shown in Figs. 7 A, 9 A and B and 10 A. The second spawning was on the side as shown in Fig. 7B. It is to be noted, however, that the vertical surface was selected only after the block had been moved so that there was more swimming room between it and the glass side. There was no disposition at any time to spawn under the shelter of the construction. At one end there was a shallow shelter and at the other a deep one. The fishes, sometimes, when not breed- ing hid just within the entrance, but never went out of sight. The site of the egg deposition may or may not be near one of the earlier made holes, but in an average small aquarium there is little opportunity to recede very far from it. 1934j Breder: Reproduction of Aequidens 9 The actual deposition of spawn may be studied at close range as the fishes are usually so intent on the process they are not readily disturbed. Apparently, spawning is usually or prob- ably always done in daylight. Aequidens is quite inactive at night, both in the natural state and in aquaria. Since it was already known that under the conditions in the experimental aquaria spawning occurred about every twenty-five days, it was a simple matter to plan long in advance for the anticipated egg laying. The aquarium was arranged in such a fashion as to cause repro- duction to take place in a readily visible location. As the choice of egg laying sites was already well understood, the tank ar- rangement became a simple matter and the only requirement was to be on hand at the prognosticated time. The details of one spawning studied intently, which included the use of a hand lens, may be considered as typical. Spawning commenced at about 10.00 a.m. and was not com- pleted until about 12.30. The eggs were laid on a rounded cement disc especially made for such a purpose. Just prior to depositing the first eggs the female engaged herself in a final ''cleaning” of the spawning site by continually biting at the rock. At the same time a more or less violent quivering is observable. The male takes no part in this final procedure, merely swimming about leisurely close to the rock. At this time the ovipositor of the female and the inseminating tube of the male are both ex- tended to their full limit. The former is decidedly blunt and larger in diameter than the latter which is pointed. See Fig. 2- A and B. Both point slightly backward. According to C. W. Coates (personal communication) those of Cichlasoma nigro- fasciata Gunther, point slightly forward as do those of the pomacentrid, Pomacentrus leucoris, Breder and Coates (1933). The female proceeds to drag the ovipositor gently over the rock surface with the tips of the long ventral fins trailing out on either side. The eggs come singly and may be seen passing down the translucent tube. The fish comes to rest generally when the egg is about half extruded. Due to the fact that the tube is bent backward because of being dragged over the rock the eggs are held free of it until the female slows her motion a little, or rises slightly so that the egg comes in contact with the rock surface. 10 Zoologica: N, Y, Zoological Society [XVIII ; 1 Here it adheres and the female passes on to repeat the process. Usually the tube crumples slightly and were it not for its flaccid condition would appear to be used to press the egg in place. This is certainly not the case as any significant pressure would be mechanically impossible by such a feeble structure. As the female pulls away from the egg a slight quivering of the body may be noted. A diagram of the action of the egg laying is given in Fig. 2 — C, D and E. The above description gives the simplest of the behavior in egg laying. About half of the time the ventral fins assist in expressing the egg. It would seem that the passage is not always entirely easy. Under such conditions the fins are brought together, slightly pinching the tube between them and are then pressed downwards, resulting in stripping the tube of the egg. This action of the fins is naturally very gentle and weak, due to the poor leverage, but is apparently adequate. In addition to the mechanical side of the performance, there may of course be some nervous stimulation that is not so obvious. The male is in no way attentive to the female proper but proceeds to drag his inseminating tube over the rocks and eggs in a similar manner to that of the female, stopping and quivering every so often. Apparently at such times the sperm is ejected, but in such small quantities that nothing could be seen that for certainty could be designated a cloud of sperm. The male does not usually follow the female about but moves over the eggs, rather independent of her, trailing his fertilizing tube over the eggs generally where she has been recently depositing spawn. Although he is as likely as not to be at right angles to her on encountering new eggs, he is apt to line up where she was while the fluid is emitted, as evidenced by the characteristic tremor. By this time the female has usually moved on and is headed in some other direction. It would seem that the presence of the new egg stimulates the male to emission. Possibly the greater adhe- sive quality of the newest egg or eggs has a stimulating effect that is lost as soon as they water harden. In any event he goes over the entire patch so often that it is unlikely that any would be missed, even on a most haphazard fertilization. The actual spawning is illustrated in Figs. 5 and 6A. The latter shows the 1934] Breder: Reproduction of Aequidens 11 fish in as close an approach as they ever make to each other. The male is on the left following the female. The first eggs are laid in rather rapid order and may be along straight or slightly curved lines to the number of five or six. This explains the presence of such groups that may be seen in each photograph of the eggs in this paper (especially Fig. 8). Beldt (1923) , one of the relatively recent writers in small aquaria journals, states that about twenty eggs are laid in a row and that the male fertilizes them as soon as a row is laid. The writer observed no rows as long as that, nor that the male paid any par- ticular attention to rows, as such. With longer rows, however, such behavior might become apparent. After several such groups have been laid the female passes over and over the cluster, plac- ing an egg wherever there is room, which explains the presence of those not in lines. The spacing of the eggs is likewise evident, the minimum being accounted for by the thickness of the walls of the ovipositor. After a fair number of eggs have been laid, the remainder seem to be under less pressure and the actions are more deliberate. At such times the female may be seen trying to fit the ovipositor with its contained egg between two previously laid. Near the end of spawning the eggs come with much less frequency, but also the available spaces between previously laid eggs become fewer, resulting in longer and longer periods of “feeling'' for a vacancy. Frequently, at such times, the female apparently unable to retain the egg any longer, rushes to the edge of the cluster and makes deposition well beyond the main group. This clearly accounts for the scattering or thinning of the eggs toward the edge of a group of spawn. This feature is likewise indicated in each of the photographs. Thus it becomes evident that the characteristic pattern of the egg cluster of Aequidens is explainable on a purely mechanical basis in which the scattered lines of eggs, the irregularly placed ones and the thinning toward the edge of the group are all functions of (1) the speed with which the eggs are delivered, and (2) the tend- ency to lay the eggs as closely together as the size of the ovi- positor will allow. On the completion of spawning, the male moves off to stand guard and the female fans the eggs. The genital tubes shrink 12 Zoologica: N, Y. Zoological Society [XVIII; 1 to a small size within a half hour and the characteristic defense behavior against intrusion takes place. The male in Figure lOA of another pair, still plainly shows his shrinking genital tube. Spawning may take place at a temperature of about 26° C. but one pair in running tap water spawned at 21° C. Beldt (1923) found them breeding at 70° F. and that they could withstand temperatures as low as 56° F. Breder (1927) found the Panama fish breeding between 76° and 86° F. The color of the eggs in all cases was a deep amber but Beldt (1923) describes the color as red. If this is not an error, there is more variation in this regard than would be supposed from the writer's experience. All other mention of egg color in the aquarium literature agrees with the author’s observation. The number of eggs deposited at one spawning as indicated in Table II ranges up to 485 at least. Beldt (1923) gives a range of from 200 to 350 and the time of laying as forty-five minutes which is considerably shorter than the observation described herewith which, however, is in accord with the fewer eggs. As indicated in Table II the eggs, under our conditions, hatch in two or three days. Beldt (1923) gives four days. Parental Care The most striking features in the reproduction of Aequidens are involved in the details of parental care. The parent fishes cooperate to a remarkable degree in this feature of behavior. As soon as the eggs are deposited, which event may occupy sev- eral hours, both parents occupy themselves by circulating the water over them, as noted by Beldt (1923) . This may be done by the pectoral fins, or by waving the caudal as well as the long lobe of the anal fin. Usually only one fish at a time thus works over the eggs. The other cruises about nearby as though scouting for possible enemies. If the eggs are more spread out than is gen- erally the case both parents, at times, may work over the eggs simultaneously. Such behavior is shown in Fig. 9A. After a period varying from one to fifteen minutes, the guarding parent will approach the incubating parent and then they will change places. This changing of the guard is illustrated in Figure 6B which shows the female coming to relieve the male. The guard- 1934] Breder: Reproduction of Aequidens 13 ing parent alone takes ‘‘time out’’ to feed. The taking of food is almost always followed by a quicker than usual return to the eggs, a reaction tending to insure that both get food? Coates (1932) describing the behavior of the parents of these fishes, in a tank containing various species, states it as follows. “At feeding time the male would dash into the milling swarm of fishes congregated about the falling food, snatch a few mouth- fuls— always keeping a wary eye on the manoeuvering of the other fishes, ready to drive away any that appeared unduly inter- ested in his nest — ^and then swim over to the nest to relieve the female of her nursery duties. Immediately upon his arrival, but not an instant before, she would hurry over to the feeding place and, while snapping up some food, ably perform the polic- ing duties of her consort. After a few mouthfuls she would return to the nest, and the male would come back for more food. This interchange of duties would occur as many as three times before the hunger of either was appeased.” Scores of observa- tions show that the male spends more time fanning the eggs than the female. It has been generally assumed that the above described be- havior has to do with an adequate aeration of the eggs. That this has nothing to do with such activity, on the part of these fishes at Ipast, is established by the fact that they will hatch just as well when removed from the parental influence. This is directly contradictory to Beldt (1923) who states, “Were you to remove the narents as soon as the eggs are laid they would decay.” Fiprure 8D shows the newly hatched eggs of Figs. 6B and 8B, which had been taken from their parents. Although in an anuarium this behavior is thus patently unnecessary to the hatch- ing of the eggs, in a state of nature it undoubtedly is of genuine si>nificance on two counts at least. Small, exploring, bottom life destructive to fish eggs, such as Crustacea and worms, may be certainlv kent off bv such means, while the guarding parent fends off larger attacks, such as other fishes. Both these eflPects have been observed in aouaria in which such organisms have been nlaced nr kent. Coates (1932) writes as follows concerning defense of the nest: “At no time was the nest unguarded, and likewise at no time were the other inhabitants of the tank free 14 Zoologica: N. Y. Zoological Society [XVIII ; 1 to go where they pleased. They were all herded into the end of the tank farthest from the nest; unmolested if they did not wander, but unceremoniously hustled back if they did.” Chute (1933) states ‘‘ ... it is a common sight at the Aquarium to see, in a tank holding ten or fifteen Acaras, two pairs of fishes fan- ning eggs and a third pair guarding a flock of young fry, while they take turns herding the unoccupied adults into one corner of the tank.” Possibly even more important is the prevention of suffocation of the eggs by the silting processes of most natural streams. In the Panama waters inhabited by Aequidens coerule- opunctatus such silting is general and fills all small depressions. On the other hand, the nandid, Monocirrhus poly acanthus Heckel, which hangs its eggs on the underside of a leaf, Coates (1933), where they are automatically protected from silt, shows not nearly as much current producing activity, acting more as a standing guard. While its vibratory fin tips produce a fair cur- rent, this movement is normal in the resting fish, just as it is to C7m6ra, Breder (1925). At times when Aequidens are not caring for eggs or young they flee from any object intruded into the aquarium. When eggs are present the fish are very aggressive and will attack fingers or net, at times holding on with their minute teeth and shaking bulldog fashion. A small rock quietly introduced shares the same fate. One fish was observed to ^‘work” on such an object for nearly an hour. Removal of the eggs causes the fish to lurk in the vicinity for some days. Both parents attacking an intrud- ing hand is shown in Fig. 9B. The male, to the left, is half turned in his effort to tear out a piece of flesh. The question as to what stimulus causes this response natur- ally arises, for non-breeding individuals will attack and eat either eggs or young of another pair. This seems to be one of the chief problems of a pair in tank containing other fishes, either addi- tional Aequidens or different species. The greater aggressiveness of the parents seems to “bluff” even specimens much larger and there is usually a short chase only. At no time has such a raider been seen to offer fight. Aside from physiological changes incident to spawning, what may account for the observed be- havior ? Are the fish attracted to the eggs or to the site at which 1934] Breder: Reproduation of Aequidens 15 they spawned? In order to determine this the following experi- ment was undertaken. Two identical cement blocks were pre- pared and placed in an aquarium with a pair of fish about ready to spawn. Realizing the preference of these fish for a rock, rather than the glass walls of an aquarium, it was anticipated that they* would spawn on one of them. This occurred in due course of time. This was a second spawning on such a block similar to that shown in Figs. 5 and 6A. The following day a dark glass was dropped into the aquarium and the two fishes herded behind it. Then the two cement blocks, one holding the eggs and the other not, were quickly reversed as to position, as shown in Fig. 3A. It was expected that the fish would either tend the eggs in this new position, or stay at the old site. When the opaque partition was removed neither happened. For some time the parent fish took no apparent notice of either block but cruised about the tank as do fish that have been recently netted. In about an hour they were seen picking the eggs off the rock. These were then stowed in the bottom of an old excavation farthest from the front glass. Here they were incubated after the fashion of centrarchids. It is thus evident that the place of oviposition does not determine the parental behavior. Further than this it demonstrates that these fish are sufficiently responsive to environmental modifications to resent such changes by decamping with their family to a new site. So far as the writer knows, this has no parallel in verte- brates lower than mammals (e.g, the domestic cat) and has none in the egg-laying vertebrates. It is stated in the popular aqua- rium literature that various related cichlids may lay their eggs either attached to a solid support or in a sand depression. On a basis of the above it would seem likely that the cases of laying eggs in the sand may only be cases of such change of locality due to disturbance, and described from fragmentary observation. On toward the time of hatching, the guarding parent be- comes more and more industrious in digging new holes. While the difference is slight it would seem that the female is the more active in this regard. This may be simply because the male does the bulk of the egg fanning. The sand digging operation is well illustrated by Fig. lOB. The force with which the sand is ejected may be noted by the distance of the particles from the 16 Zoologica: N, Y. Zoological Society [XVIII ; 1 fish as they fall down the glass wall. Shortly after the eggs have hatched they are removed by the parents to one of these newly made depressions, usually one larva at a time, as was also noted by Beldt (1923). They are gently picked off from the shells to which they hang by their adhesive organs. Eggs that are dead are likewise picked off but whether or not they are segregated could not be determined. The young fish are usually placed in one depression but may occupy two or even three. It would seem that the ‘Team-work’^ of the parents is not perfect at this point, one favoring one hole and the other another. From now on until the yolk sac is absorbed and the young fish rise from the sand in a cloud, the parents’ efforts are mostly those of guarding. Occasionally they will take up a mouthful of young fish and blow them back in the nest which seems to serve to prevent their packing into a suffocating mass, or, more likely, has to do with the problem of silting in a state of nature as already alluded to. The young without parents suffer no inconvenience in an aqua- rium but scatter out widely. The method of handling is entirely by sucking in on the respiratory current and ejecting by the special method fishes use in blowing out water, as described by Breder (1925a and b). After the fish have risen, about three days later, ^ the par- ents’ activities are of three distinct parts. There are always straj?gler«^ laboring behind the school of young fish, or precocious on^^s darting ahead or to one side. These are picked up and bl<>vm b^ck into the mass with considerable violence. A male o-qthpring im venturesome offspring to return them to the nest- is shown in Fig. IIA. Guarding the young becomes more difficult but is carried on with eoual energy. Hole dio*ging seems to be of ^riecialized kind. It is nersisted in but the holes are small and shallow. As soon as a small hole is dug, accompanied by a flurry fine debris, the young swarm into it and apparently feed on the small norticles brought up. As the young grow the relation- c^hi'n with their parents bocomes progressiyely more loose. At about twenty-five davs from the egg laving, the parents are o-enerallv readv to snawn again, at which time they usually lose all interest in their earlier young, and may eat them if not ' See Table TT. Belrlt (1923) also gives this figure. 1934] . Breder: Reproduction of Aequidens 17 too well fed. The few that do escape merge with the next brood when the latter rise from the sand but are readily distinguished by their much larger size. If the eggs are removed, as previously described, and the young returned to the parents when able to swim, they are devoured as any food object. The parental in- stinct is thus destroyed by absence from the eggs. On the other hand, young from another brood are not distinguished by the parents from their own, even if of a considerably different size. In fact one pair 'attempted to herd two young Lehistes reticulatus together with their offspring. The efforts of the Lehistes were those of violent escape, quite different than those of the young Aequidens. Reactions of the Young The preceding description of the attitude of the parents toward the young presents a very inadequate picture of the fam- ily life of Aequidens, since it is an integration of such factors with those of the young fish themselves. The tropisms of the young fish give valuable clews to the complicated reproductive activities of the species since they are not overlaid by the various conditionings that help to becloud the elements involved in the parents’ behavior. The newly swimming larval Aequidens are negatively helio- tropic in a rather weak fashion. In a simple aquarium without fittings they will regularly gravitate to the darkest end. They will not, however, go into a completely darkened portion but may possibly be better described as seeking some optimum of light intensity. This is apparently similar to the behavior of young toads as described by Riley (1913). Young reared in the pres- ence of the ‘‘breeding block” shown in Figs. 7, 9 and 10 never entered its shelter although they sometimes stayed within its shadow, nor did the parents try to urge them to it but dug new holes for them as shown in Fig. lOB. The visual stimuli appear to be by far the most predominant ones. Cutting across the negative heliotropism, and sometimes directly opposed to it, is a positive response to moving objects. This is not interfered with, either by size, color, degree or kind of motion, through a 18 Zoologica: N, Y, Zoological Society [XVIII; 1 wide range. It is this that certainly keeps the school of young fish together, and in company with their parents. The limiting factors of reaction are purely mechanical, such as distance of moving objects in relation to size, intensity of light, amplitude and speed of motion. In the experiments used to define these responses, flat cards of the sizes shown in Figure 3B were employed. These were sus- pended from a pivot so that they could be swung to and fro at a distance by means of a cord passed over a series of pulleys. Figure 12 shows the position of a school before and after moving a dark oval card. In this case the moving target was suspended in a beaker within the aquarium, but it worked just as well entirely free and outside of the tank. Figure 12A shows the fishes in a school at the dark end of the aquarium, taking no heed of the target about the size of their parents, and Figure 12B shows them clustered about it a few moments after it had been slightly oscillated, contrary to the negative heliotropism. At a distance of 30 cm. object number 1, in Figure 3B, caused an appropriate reaction, as did a black and a white card 3" x 5" at a slightly greater distance. Items 2 and 3 of the same figure would induce a reaction at a closer distance only, and item 4, which was merely the bare wire that supported the cards, would work not farther away than 5 cm. A further complicating reaction is that any sudden change to either a brighter or duller light intensity causes the fish to drop to the bottom. Tapping on the glass, as when in Figure 12 the target is oscillated too far, had no apparent effect ; but a violent agitation, such as a very heavy jar to the table, would cause them to drop to the bottom. These reactions together with those of the parents may account for the entire behavior ordinarily observed which some- times appears to be very complicated. In a wild state the value of these reactions is quite apparent. The negative heliotropism to strong light tends to keep the fish on the bottom, as all the bright light under such conditions comes from above, while the positive heliotropism to weak light keeps the young fish out of dark holes that may hide lurking predators. The positive reaction to moving objects of any size keeps the schools together and in company of the parents. The dropping to the bottom on a sud- 1934] Breder: Reproduction of Aequidens 19 den change in light intensity keeps the fish where they are best able to be protected by the parents when a larger fish passes overhead, or an overhanging plant is brushed aside by some stream-side animal. A slight mechanical jar would not likely occur in their native waters, but to a violent action, such as the planting of a hoof in the water, they are negative. One of the characteristic acts of the parent fish with young at this stage, when danger threatens, is to immediately swim over the school of young fish and snap the ventrals out fanwise. This may be repeated several times before he dashes to attack the intruder. The young fish consequently drop to the bottom. It is little wonder that such behavior has led the uncritical to write in an extreme anthropomorphic vein about cichlids, vesting them with all man- ner of human attributes. As the fishes grow larger and sturdier these reactions be- come gradually less and less pronounced. At one point, when the young are about six days old, the small school takes on charac- teristic ‘‘streaming’’ movements. Not infrequently these form a figure eight as indicated in Figure 3C. The young in this aqua- rium passed through this double loop in an average time of 12 seconds, showing them to have a speed of about 5 feet per minute. This is naturally before the time they scatter out and its func- tion, if any, is not clear. It is imperative that the young leave the parents before another spawning, however, which may be as soon as twenty-five days. If this does not take place the old fish try to guard the young indefinitely and very likely accounts for some fish seen in Panama with exceedingly large young. After they once leave the parents, the cycle is completed, with the young going on to maturity. Certain other items of behavior, not readily discussed with the foregoing, have been relegated to the following section. Some are explainable at this time and others are not, but in some ways they form the most interesting items in this study. Exceptional Items of Behavior In the case where eggs were deposited on the black parti- tion of aquarium “B” of Fig. 1 and shown in Fig. 8C, a most 20 Zoologica: N. Y, Zoological Society [XVIII; 1 remarkable performance took place in aquarium “A” which still contained the solitary male originally placed there for the hole-digging experiments. This fish took up a position on its side of the perfectly opaque partition and proceeded to fan and otherwise father the area exactly opposite, the spot covered by the eggs. Fig. 13A shows the two fish on either side of the glass in characteristic poses. ^ It was first thought that the possible chemical emanations from the eggs, passing through the slight crack between the partition and the aquarium side, attracted this male fish. That this was not the case became evident later as this fish carried on his incubating efforts for the entire time, stopping only when the parents had removed the young to one of their sand pits. The exactitude with which this fish covered the area corresponding to that occupied by the eggs, can still not be ade- quately explained at this writing. As vision and chemical sense could not well account for this effect, sound and mechanical jar were considered ; especially the latter as the fishes on either side of the partition actually attempted to fight through this opaque wall through which they could not possibly see their opponent. In various places they would bump their noses against the glass exactly opposite to each other. These fighting regions were gen- erally somewhere near the eggs, but sometimes as much as half way across the tank. Observation of such behavior lead to an experiment based on a modification of the targets earlier de- scribed in studying the tropisms of the young. The oscillating member was set up, as shown in Figure 13B. A piece of rubber tubing was placed on the moving end at an angle so that it could be made to tap the partition on the egg-bearing side with any degree of firmness. Light taps such as the fish might give caused no response, and stronger ones merely induced the fleeing reac- tion which was only temporary because of the strong attraction to the place opposite the eggs. Further observation revealed the real cause of the ‘‘fighting through the wall” which proved to be as simple as it was mystifying. The crack between the glass side of the tank and the black ^ It will be noted that the excavations in the sand in this and the following three pictures do not tally exactly with those of Fig. 1-5. This is because these photographs were taken much later when still other holes had been dug. Close inspection will, however, show the original excavations of the earlier period. 1934] Breder: Reproduction of Aequidem 21 partition was not more than one-eighth of an inch wide. Due to the large angle of vision of these fishes they could actually see each other through it. This was checked by placing smaller strips of black glass against the aquarium walls but sufficiently distant from the partition not to interfere with a free interchange of water so as not to inhibit any chemical effusions. Under such con- ditions all fighting stopped, only to reappear again when the baffles were removed. This completely explained the fighting at the edge of the partition but not that remote from its edge. Long and continued observation explained this also as it was noted that all ''fights” started at the crack. In their struggles to get through at each other, each fish struck the aquarium wall and then moved back from it (or knocked itself back). Then they would be facing just about opposite each other and if first no- ticed in such a position were decidedly puzzling. It may well be also, that the tapping on the glass of the opposite fish influenced them to continue even if mechanical imitation could not initiate such behavior. Before attempting to explain the attitude of the lone fish, toward the eggs, the events following hatching may be mentioned. At the time the young began to rise and swim around, some young fish of another pair were introduced to both aquarium "A” and "B.” Those in "B” were absorbed in the "family” school and the male in "A” immediately took characteristic parental care of his charges. This is entirely unlike the behavior of non- breeding adults which see the little fish only as food objects. This is even true when some are returned to parents whose nest has been robbed as has already been pointed out. Further than this, as the young fish grew and became more adventuresome, the male in "A” managed to rob the true parents. He would lie in wait near the crack and as a young fish came close literally suck it through the crack. Fig. 14A shows the two aquaria with the young fish up and active. The fish in "A” has just begun to gather the school together. Fig. 14B shows a later condition where he had actually rounded up the bulk of them on his side of the wall. From then on much of the time was spent with the fishes on either side of the fence taking the young fish back and forth (Fig. 14C). Sometimes most were on one side and some- 22 Zoologica: N, Y. Zoological Society [XVIII ; 1 times on the other. This was kept up until the fish were removed to make way for other experiments. An attempted explanation of the unusual behavior of this solitary male is offered for whatever it may be worth. Since these fish normally eat the young of others unless they are tend- ing a brood of their own, and since the male in question showed all the reactions of a fish that had just spawned, it is supposed that while the pair in ‘‘B” were spawning on the glass partition, the male in ‘‘A’’ became stimulated to discharge its gonads, directing attention to the crack through which the female could be intermittently seen. In fact it is not impossible that some of the eggs may have been fertilized by the extraneous male. Of course if the partition had not been there, one male or the other would have been vanquished and probably killed. In a large aquarium containing a stable population, not unlike that described for Lehistes by Breder and Coates (1932), it was not uncommon for as many as three pairs to be caring for young at the same time.^ Apparently these broods would never get mixed up. Observation showed that they closely approached, but would veer off from each other just as they would be about to merge. Since the schools were always composed of slightly different sized fishes, they could be distinguished. That the size difference had no bearing on it is shown by the merging of the remnants of an earlier school with a later as previously described. Incidentally, the schools in this larger tank were always more compact due to the greater attention given by the parents pre- sumably because of the aggression of non-breeding fish. Even- tualy, most of the young would nevertheless disappear that way, just enough growing up to replace deaths from other causes. Discussion The study of the reproductive habits of Aequidens latifrons makes clear the fact that these fishes excavate holes for both the purpose of modifying their environment to suit their con- venience, and also at the time of breeding as receptacles for their young. It has also been shown that to a very remarkable degree ^ Chute (1933) made similar observations in the much larger exhibition tanks of the Shedd Aquarium in Chicago. 1934] Breder: Reproduction of Aequidens 23 these fishes will modify their behavior to suit a given set of cir- cumstances, as for example the case where a pair removed their eggs from a rock, following disturbance, and incubated them in a sand hole not unlike the method of the centrarchids. Given such a tendency to transport both eggs and young under appropriate stimuli, it is not difficult to imagine how oral incubation may have arisen. Continual annoyance in a state of nature by other creatures may have induced continued transportation until finally no resting place at all was selected, Breder (1933) . Checking from the other end, that is, from species that carry their eggs regularly, there are other evidences to support this view. While these experiments were in progress a pair of Tilapia heudeloti Dumeril, were also studied. While the full details of their reproductive habits will not be gone into at this time, the following remarks are distinctly pertinent. Prior to spawning, a large but shallow hole was dug, approximately in the center of the tank, and all loose detritus brushed back. The eggs were deposited in the hole and immediately gathered up by the male. As there is an obvious necessity for depositing eggs in a place from which they may be recovered, the retention of hole digging and cleaning as a habit is clearly of survival value. Another species, Haplochromis strigigena Pfeffer, that carries its eggs about, may or may not prepare an excavation for the eggs, as is well known. Whether or not a nest is made seems to depend on the aquarium. If large, and with a quantity of detritus on the bottom, a nest is likely ; whereas in a scrupulously clean, small tank, one is unlikely. Here, again, seems to be a well-marked disposition to fit the behavior to the condition. In this species the females normally take care of the eggs, but as Breder (1918) has shown, the male may sometimes take on the role. As one fish normally takes care of the eggs, the tendency for either or alter- nate sexes to take the role would seem to be relict of a time when both were interested in protecting the young. The fact that the brooding type normally alternate their attention to the eggs, further suggests a reason why both fish do not each take some. Actually, this does occur in the oral incubating Betta pugnax Cantor, which derives its habits from a different basic type. A further consideration of the significance of these differences will 24 Zoologica: N. Y, Zoological Society [XVIII; 1 be discussed in a later communication. Apparently, the origin of oral incubation in the Siluridse, on the other hand, had its inception in a habit closely similar to that of the Cichlidae. As pointed out by Breder (1932), incubating Amcmr^^5 fre- quently take their eggs in their mouth and churn them about. This, which has a special significance, will be discussed in full in a detailed consideration of their reproductive habits. Summary 1. Aequidens latifrons may lay eggs as frequently as every twenty-five days at a temperature of about 25° C. 2. The eggs are fanned for the full period of incubation and the young protected until the parents are ready to reproduce again. 3. The adhesive eggs are attached to a solid support, prefer- ably an opaque one, such as a rock, up to the number of about 485 at least. 4. If the fish are sufficiently disturbed the eggs may be removed, carried to some hollow in the sand, and incubated there. This behavior suggests the inception of the buccal incubation of other genera of cichlids. Further disturbance will sometimes result in the young or eggs being eaten. 5. Holes are regularly excavated in the substrate and act as lurking places, and, at times of reproduction, as sites to place the newly hatched fish before they are able to swim, or for the eggs if the original site is disturbed. 6. The young are negatively heliotropic, move toward any mov- ing object of sufficient size to be detected, and descend to the bottom on any sudden change in light intensity to either greater or lesser brilliance and to violent mechanical jars. These reactions, coupled with those of the parents, account for most of the apparent, complicated, family relationships. 1934] Breder: Reproduction of Aequidens 25 7. Sex recognition is accomplished by the differential behavior of a female ready to spawn as compared with that of males or non-spawning females which fight on approach. 8. Well established areas of proprietorship are patrolled by Aequidens, usually about some natural retreat or sand hole. Neutral areas exist where fighting does not ensue. 9. Artificial holes are sometimes accepted, chiefly in strange aquaria where there has been no conditioning to previous places. Under the latter conditions a hole may be re-dug repeatedly in one spot after having been destroyed. 10. Hole digging may be intensified by continued annoyance and confinement in too small a container. 11. Fighting is somewhat a coefficient of crowding up to a cer- tain point of concentration beyond which it falls off, due apparently to the establishment of an unnatural condition or one simulating the excessive crowding witnessed in the dry season of the native streams. The value of this reversal of habit is evident when it is considered that the resulting dead tissue from excessive deaths by fighting would reduce the chances of survival of the remainder by pollution. The in- crease in CO2 concentration acts to inhibit fighting as here noted, but long before the suffocation threshhold is reached. 26 Zoologica: N. Y. Zoological Society [XVIII; 1 Bibliography Beldt, O. C. 1923 Acara coeruleopunctata. Aquatic Life, 7 (7) : 77-78. Breder, C. M. Jr. 1918 The Mouth Breeder. Aquatic Life, 3 (11) :141-142. 1925a The Locomotion of Fishes. Zoologica, 14 (5) : 159-297, 45 illus. 1925b Fishes Squirting Water. Bull. N. Y. Zool. Soc., 28 (3) : 69-72. 1927 The Fishes of the Rio Chucunaque Drainage. Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., 57 (3) :91-176. 1932 The Breeding of Bullheads in the Aquarium. Bull. N. Y. Zool. Soc., 35 (4):129-131. 1933^ On the Genesis of Oral Incubation in Fishes. [Abstract 80] Amer. Soc. Zool. Anatomical Record, 57 (4) :62. Breder, C. M. and Coates, C. W. 1932 A Preliminary Study of Population Stability and Sex Ratio of Lebistes. Copeia, (3) : 147-155. 1933 Reproduction and Eggs of Pomacentrus leucoris Gilbert. Amer. Mus. Novitates, (612) :l-6. Chute, W. 1933 Guide to the John G. Shedd Aquarium, 220 pages. Coates, C. W. 1932 The Family Life of Certain Small Fishes. Bull. N. Y. Zopl. Soc., 35 (1): 17-22. 1933 Behavior of a Pair of Leaf-fish, Monocirrhus polyacanthus Heckel. Bull. N. Y. Zool. Soc., 36 (3) :68-71. Engmann, P. 1907 Uber Acara coeruleopunctata var latifrons, Wochenschr. Aquar. — Terrar. Kunde. 4 : 377-378; 389-390; 401-402; 413-415. Riley, C. F. C. 1913 Responses of young toads to light and contact. Journ. Anim. Behav., 3: 179-214. Schoenebeck, K. J. 1933 Uber haltung und zucht der bei uns eingefuhrten buntbarsche. Das Aquarium. :81-86; 105-112; 127-134; 143-147; 159-165; 186- 188. 1 Since this study went to press, Dr. G. S. Myers presented a paper at the Seventeenth Annual Meeting of the American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists entitled, “A Pos- sible Method of Evolution of Oral Brooding Habits in Cichlidi Fishes.” The views _ expressed therein are in essential agreement with the present concerning the origin] of oral incubation, and with the abstract of Breder (1933). It is noteworthy that these two workers independently find their conclusions in such full accord. 27 1934] Breder: Reproduction of Aequidens Table I Fighting Eeactions of Aequidens under Varying Conditions Attitude mM Free CO2 mM Combined CO2 pH ®C. Date F 0.25 2.24 7.3 26 June 13 N 0.42 2.96 7.3 26 ‘ 13 F 0.29 1.69 6.8 23 14 N 2.01 1.88 6.1 26 14 3.15 1.69 6.0 26 14 F 0.82 1.96 6.6 21.5 i5 N • • • 7.0 20 16 F" • • • » • • 7.0 21 19 N * • • 7.0 20 20 F . . . 7.0 22 24 N • • • 7.0 22 25 F • • • 7.0 22 27 F 0.37 0.27 6.8 22.5 July 11 F=Fight. N=No fight. CO2 readings made with a Van Slyke apparatus; pH readings made with a LaMotte comparator, both by T. H. Howley. 1 Fish suffocating. 2 Fighting slight. Table II Reproduction Data on Aequidens latifrons Days Spawn Pair Arose since No. of Temp. Eggs See Fig. No. of Spawned Hatched from Spawn- eggs “ C. placed No. Fish Nest ing on white 1 A May 5 May 6 May 11 . . 485 25.5 rock 6B, 8B, D black 2 B May 5 May 8 May 11 . . 358 25.5 glass 8C, 13, 14 round 3 B May 30 June 5 25 . . . . . . block 3A, 5, 6A round 4 B June 24 June 27 25 486 26. block 2, 8A slate 5 June 28 21. bottom round 6 July 15 23.5 block top of 7 B July 17 July 19 23 +1 0 0 CO 23.5 square 7A, 9, 10 side of 8 E® July 31 Aug. 2 square 7B 1 In running tap water. 2 Same male but different female from pair “C.’ 2 Female from pair “B”; male from pair “D.” I 1934J Breder: Reproduction of Aequidens 29 A D C D Fig. 1.— The excavating habits of Aeqiddens. A, B, C and D represent two aquaria, each bisected by a black glass partition. The outer black lines represent cardboard walls further re- stricting vision outside their aquaria. Black areas represent excavations made by the fishes. Dotted areas represent excavations made by hand in imitation of the retreats. Sex symbols indicate number and sex of specimens. See text for explanation. 1. Condition of aquaria after standing for fifteen days. 2. Condition of aquaria after smoothing of sand the day previous, and the construction of an artificial retreat in “A”. 3. Condition of aquaria after smoothing the day previous, and the construction of an artificial retreat in each aquarium, coupled with a complete blinding of each aquarium. (Note especially the board walls.) 4. Condition of aquaria after the removal of the front wnll. 5. Condition of aquaria three days after intro- duction of female in “B”, and removal of partition between “B” and “C”. 6. Place of nest made by female in a circular aquarium evenly illuminated. 7. Place of second nest in cir- cular aquarium after the placing of a light and a black card on either side of the aquarium. See text for discussion. 30 Zoologica: N. Y. Zoological Society [XVIII; 1 Fig. 2. -Egg laying of Aequidens. A, Female ovipositor. B. Male fertilizing organ. C. Female dragging ovipositor, with egg nearly extruded. D. The passage of the egg. E. The female assisting the passage of an egg by means of the ventral fins. See text for details. In all, the organs are slightly exaggerated in size. 1934] Breder: Reproduction of Aequidens 31 Fig. 3.— A. Diagram of method employed in shifting the eggs laid on an especially made cement block in such a fashion that the parents could not see the action. See text for explana- tory discussion. B. Diagram of objects used in the study of tropisms of juvenile Aequidens. Items 1, 2 and 3 are black card targets, and 4 is the pale grey 'wire used for their support. C. Diagram of streaming movements of young fish in a small aquarium. 32 Zoologica: N. Y. Zoological Society [XVIII; 1 Fig. 4.— A typical pair of adult Aeqnidens Jatify'ons, the parents of the fishes on which this study was based. Male, left; female, right. 1934] Breder: Reproduction of Aequidens 33 Fig. 5.— Two typical postures of Aequidens in spawning. The male to the left in both cases. 34 Zoologica: N. Y. Zoological Society [XVIII; 1 A B Fig. 6.— A. Aequidens near the end of a spawning. Male, right; female, left. B. Male Aeqiddens fanning water over eggs, with female approaching to relieve him. Not how the bottom has been cleared of detritus in the vicinity of the nest. 1934] Breder: Reproduction of Aequidens 35 Fig. 7.— A. Eggs on the top of the cement block. B. Eggs on the side of the cement block. 36 Zoologica: N. Y. Zoological Society [XVIII; 1 A B Fig. 8.— A. Eggs on a round cement block. B. Eggs on a white rock. C. Eggs on a black glass. D. The newly hatched young on the white rock shown in “B”. 1934J Breder: Reproduction of Aequidens 37 A B Fig. 9. -A. Both male and female incubating simultaneously. B. The same pair defending their eggs against an intruding hand. 38 Zoologica: N. Y, Zoological Society [XVIII; 1 B Fig. 10. — A. The male of Fig. 9 incubating and wiping the eggs with his ventral fins. B. The female of Fig. 9 excavating a hole for the reception of the young about to hatch. The sand grains ejected from the female’s mouth have struck the glass wall and are falling. 1934] Breder: Reproduction of Aequidens 39 A B Fig. 11.— A. A male Aequidens gathering adventurous young, to return them to the brood shown in the background. B. Young Aequidens at the stage that they usually begin to escape from parental solicitude. 40 Zoologica: N. Y. Zoological Society [XVIII; 1 P'ig. 12.— Reactions of juvenile Aequidens to a moving dark object in relation to their nega- tive heliotropism. A. Young fish at end of tank farthest from light before oval target was moved. B. Young fish about beaker containing target after it had been oscillated a few times. 1934] Breder: Reproduction of Aequidens 41 Fig. 13. -A. Aequidens fanning eggs on a black glass aquarium partition, and the pe- culiarly interested lone male on the other side of the partition. These eggs are the same as those shown in Figure 8C. B. Aquaria “A” and “B” of Figure 1 showing the tapping device. 42 Zoologica: N. Y. Zoological Society [XVIII ; 1 c Fig. 14.— A. A lone male Aeqiiidens in the process of robbing the parents of their brood. (Center) At the start, with only a few obtained. B. and C. Later, when the lone male actu- ally had more young than the parents. i^ctai gorfe Zoologtcal ^ocictj* Scientific Publications A completely classified list of the subjects included in each of the finished volumes of Zoologica, and all other publications of the New York Zoological Society will be furnished on application. Address H. R. MITCHELL Manager, Zoological Park 185th St. and Southern Boulevard, New York City ZOOLOGICA SCIENTIFIC CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE NEW YORK ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY VOLUME XVIII. NUMBER 2 THE FUR SEAL OF THE GALAPAGOS ISLANDS By Charles Haskins Townsend Director New York Aquarium PUBLISHED BY THE SOCIETY THE ZOOLOGICAL PARK, NEW YORK August, 1934 ^ fork Zoologtral &orfety General Office: 101 Park Avenue, New York City 0f^ttXSi President^ Madison Grant; Honorary President^ Henry Fairfield Osborn; Vive-PresidentSf W. Redmond Cross and Kermit Roosevelt; Chairman^ Executive Committee, Madison Grant; Treasurer, Cornelius R. Agnew; Secretary, William White Niles ot %xmXttsi Claw of 1035 Henry Fairfield Osborn, Robert S. Brewster, Edward S. Harkness, Edwin Thorne, Irving K. Taylor, Harry Payne Bingham, Landon K. Thorne, J. Watson Webb, Oliver D. Filley, De Forest Grant, H. de B. Parsons, George F. Baker Claw of 1036 Madison Grant, Wm. White Niles, Lewis R. Morris, Archer M. Huntington, George D. Pratt, Cornelius R. Agnew, Harrison Williams, Marshall Field, Ogden L. Mills, Vincent Astor, C. SuYDAM Cutting, Childs Frick Claw of 1037 George Bird Grinnell, Frederic C. Walcott, George C. Clark, W. Redmond Cross, Henry Fairfield Osborn, Jr., George Gordon Battle, Bayard Dominick, Anson W. Hard, Robert Gordon McKay, Kermit Roosevelt, Grafton H. Fyne^ John M. Schiff ^ttenfific W. Reid Blair, Director of the Zoological Park; William T. Hornaday, Director Emeritus; Charles H. Townsend, Director of the Aquarium; C. M. Breder, Jr., Assistant Director Aquarium; Raymond L. Ditmars, Curator of Mammals and Reptiles; William Beebe, Honorary Curator of Birds and Director of Department of Tropical Research; Lee S. Crandall, Curator of Birds; H. C. Raven, Prosector; Charles V. Noback, Veterinarian; Claude W. Leister, Ass’t to the Director and Curator, Educational Activities, Elwin R. Sanborn, Editor. €bitorial Committee Madison Grant, Chairman; Charles H. Townsend George Bird Grinnell W. Reid Blair William Beebe Elwin R. Sanborn, Secretary. Zoologica Vol. XVIII, No. 2 THE FUR SEAL OF THE GALAPAGOS ISLANDS Arctocephalus galapagoensis Heller By Charles Haskins Townsend Director New York Aquarium According to the meager records at present available, it is about thirty-five years since organized sealing operations at the Galapagos Islands terminated. The supply of fur seals, originally abundant but declining for nearly a century, was exhausted. The last of these records relates to the taking of 224 seals by the sealing schooner Julia E. Whalen of San Francisco, in charge of Captain W. P. Noyes. This vessel was accompanied by two naturalists, Edmund Heller and Robert E. Snodgrass, for the purpose of making collections for the zoological department of Stanford University. The voyage lasted ten months (1898-1899) during which every island of the group was visited. The catch was small as compared with those made by sealing vessels a decade or so earlier. The fur seal of the Galapagos, long known to naturalists as Arctocephalus philippi, so named by Peters in 1866, was described by Heller in 1904 as A. galapagoensis.^ It is probable that Peters had no specimens from these islands, and assumed that the Gala- pagos seal was not different from that inhabiting Juan Fernandez and Masafuero off the coast of Chili, where hundreds of thousands of fur seals were taken during the early part of the nineteenth century. The capture of several living fur seals at the Galapagos in 1932 and 1933 by Captain G. Allan Hancock of Los Angeles, California, owner and master of the cruiser Valero III, has made available for study the only specimens of this seal that have been taken since 1906. At that time a single specimen was secured by R. H. Beck. During recent years the Galapagos fur seal has been regarded as 1 Proc. Cal. Acad. Sci. 1904. 3d series. Vol. III. No. 7. pp. 245-48. 43 44 Zoologica: N. Y, Zoological Society [XVIII; 2 Fig. 15. Galapagos fur seal, Arctocephalus galapagoensis Heller. Adult male. Zoo- logical Garden, San Diego, California. 45 1934] Townsend: Fur Seal of the Galapagos Islands probably extinct. Captain Hancock is to be felicitated on its re- discovery. The living seals, six or eight in number, were presented by Captain Hancock to the Zoological Garden at San Diego, California, where the accompanying photographs were made. Three of these seals, that died some months later, were sent (in the flesh) to the writer by Dr. H. M. Wegeforth, President of the Zoological Society of San Diego, who accompanied Captain Hancock on his second voyage. The skins and skeletons are now in the American Museum of Natural History in New York. The skins will be mounted as a group showing adult male, adult female, and young. The photographs reproduced herewith are of decided interest, being the only ones known of this rare seal. Their publication was the principal motive in the preparation of this paper. We at least know what the animal looks like. It can hardly be numerous any- where in the archipelago. The writer, on the lookout for it during four voyages to the Galapagos, found no indication of its presence. The survivors must have hidden by day in caves protected by rocky shores where boat landings are hazardous. Those taken by Captain Hancock’s party were hidden in a dark crevice in the rocks. Photographs of the living seals were received from the San Diego Zoological Society some time before their frozen bodies arrived. Being well acquainted with the northern fur seal (Callor- hinus alascanus) as observed personally on the Pribilof Islands, it seemed as though the ancestors of the Galapagos seal must have come from the north, rather than the south. The photographs were at once compared with some made on the Pribilofs. The resemblance was striking and the arrival of the Galapagos seals was awaited with great interest. According to the photographs of the adult male, the head is short snouted and distinctly higher than in Ar otocephalus, the body proportionately thicker and the fore limb broader. The skull, however, is comparable with that of Arctocephalus and not of Callorhinus. Among the skulls of the former that were examined, were those collected by the writer many years ago in the Straits of Magellan and on the beaches at the Galapagos. There was also available the skull of an adult male Arctocephalus of Guadalupe Island, Lower California. It seems necessary, therefore, despite the resemblance of the 46 Zoologica: N. Y. Zoological Society [XVIII; 2 living animal to the northern species, to use the name given by Heller. In the absence of other skulls and photographs, one can only speculate vaguely as to whether the unexpected physiognomy of the Galapagos seal might be the result of some infiltration of blood of the northern species in its ancestry. Were more skulls available for comparison some light might be thrown on this point. Might there be two types of the Arctocephalus skull at the Galapagos? Delano writing in 1800 says, I think a vessel might procure several thousand.’' Darwin, at the Galapagos a century ago, did not see the fur seal, but mentions the presence of a sealing vessel “a few years since.” Little is known of the habits of the Galapagos fur seal. Heller, who saw many, says that it is resident, little migratory, the climate has little change, formerly in rookeries, more wary than the sea lion, hides in crevices; no well-defined rookeries now, pups of various sizes in December, and that it was seen on the roughest parts of coasts. The weather-worn skulls we found at the Galapagos in 1888 were referred by Merriam to Arctocephalus. This widely distributed southern genus anciently found its way as far north as Lower California, where a small colony persists. There is no record of Callorhinus being found south of its winter limit at Point Conception in southern California, but its Pribilof breeding base in Bering Sea is no farther from the Equator than that of Arctocephalus at Cape Horn. The coloration of the male specimen at hand is similar to that described by Heller: ‘'Above dark brown, sometimes grizzled with grayish, becoming more grayish and yellowish about the face; below lighter, the sides of the belly^hocolate brown ; limbs above like the back, distinctly becoming lighter brownish; naked parts blackish.” 1934] Townsend: Fur Seal of the Galapagos Islands 47 Fur Seals Taken at the Galapagos Islands (Partial Record) While great numbers of fur seals have been taken at the Gala- pagos Islands, the records at present available to the writer yield a total of only 22,508 skins. The late Captain Haritwen, at the Galapagos in 1880, informed the writer that several vessels from San Francisco made profitable voyages prior to 1880. Number Value 1816 — Fanning (“Voyage”) 8,000 1825 — Morrell (“Voyage”) 5,000 1843 — Ship Hector, whaler, Narborough Island 14 1872-1880 — Capt. Chas. W. Reed, four voyages 6,000 1880 — Capt. Charles Haritwen of Alameda, Calif, be- tween June 28 and August 30, at Culpepper, Albemarle, Narborough, Tower and Wenman Islands 261 $ 5. each 1882 — Capt. Haritwen stated that in 1880 another vessel took 800 1885 — Capt. F. M. Gaffney, schr. Hancock, between Aug. 30 and Dec. 8, took 1,000 1887 — Capt. Samuel Smith of San Francisco 1,200 $ 7. each 1897-1899 — Capt. W. P. Noyes, of San Francisco, schr. Julia E. Whalen 224 $10. each 1906 — Mr. R. H. Beck, schr. Academy, Sept. 15. Tower Island 1 1932-1933 — Capt. G. Allan Hancock of Los Angeles. Cruiser Valero III. (live specimens) 8 Total 22,508 Measurements of Perfect Skull of Male* Arctocephalus galapagoensis, Heller Greatest basal length 212 mm. (In Heller’s type 213 mm.) Same in skull from Straits of Magellan 258 mm. Basal length (gnathion to basion) 202 mm. Basilar length of Hensel (basion to incisors) 198 mm. Palatine length (gnathion to postpalatal notch) 99 mm. Postpalatal length (postpalatal notch to basion) 103 mm. * Measurements by C. H. Townsend and H. E. Anthony 48 Zoologica: N. Y. Zoological Society [XVIII; 2 Fig. 16. Arctocephalus galapagoensis Heller. Galapagos Islands. 1933. Adult male Photograph from American Museum of Natural History. 1934] Townsend: Fur Seal of the Galapagos Islands 49 Zygomatic breadth 132 mm, (In Heller’s type 135 mm.) Lateral series of teeth (canine to last molar inclusive) 68 mm. Same in skull from Straits of Magellan 77 mm. Distance between canines 26 mm. Distance between 3rd pair of molariform teeth 27 mm. Same in skull from Straits of Magellan 31 mm. Breadth (anteroposterior) of zygomatic root of maxilla between inferior lip of antorbital foramen and orbit 18 mm. Same in skull from Straits of Magellan 15 mm. Least interorbital breadth (anterior to supraorbital processes) ... 27 mm. Least interorbital breadth (posterior to supraorbital processes) . . 26.5 mm. Breadth across supraorbital processes 46 mm. Greatest length of nasals 29 mm. Same in skull from Straits of Magellan 46 mm. Anterior breadth of nasals 25.5 mm. Same in skull from Straits of Magellan 25 mm. Breadth of rostrum (in plane of 2nd molar) 44 mm. Mastoid breadth 117 mm. Breadth of brain case at fronto-parietal suture 77 mm. Greatest length of ramus 152 mm. Length of mandibular tooth row from incisors 69 mm. Same in skull from Straits of Magellan 75 mm. Measurements of the Carcase (Sex cf , weight minus viscera 111 pounds) Dorsal length, tip of nose to tip of tail 4 feet 6 inches Ventral length, tip of lower lip to base of tail 4 feet 3 inches Girth of head around eyes 1 foot 4 inches Girth at neck immediately behind ears 1 foot 10 inches Girth at shoulders 3 feet 1 Y2 inches Girth at axillae within lateral flippers 2 feet 10 Y inches Girth at tip of lateral flippers, approximate 2 feet AY inches Girth at base of tail just anterior to rear flippers 1 foot lY inches Length lateral flippers, axilla to flipper tip 1 foot 3 inches Girth of lateral flipper at shoulder 1 foot inch Length rear flippers, base of tail to flipper tip 1 foot 2Y inches Length of tail including hairs on tip 3 ^ inches Length of bare surface of fore flipper, anterior border IIY2 inches Length of bare surface of fore flipper, posterior border. . , , 10 inches Breadth of fore flipper at 4th claw 6 inches Length of exposed scratching claws, hind flipper 1 inch Length of ear \Y% inches 50 Zoologica: N. Y. Zoological Society [XVIII; 2 Fig. 17. Arctocephalus galapagoensis Heller. Galapagos Islands. 1933. Adult male. Photograph from American Museum of Natural History. 1934] Townsend: Fur Seal of the Galapagos Islands 51 Fig. 18. Arctocephalus galapagoensis Heller. Galapagos Islands. 1933. Adult male. Photograph from American Museum of Natural History. 52 Zoologica: N. Y. Zoological Society [XVIII; 2 Fig 19. Galapagos fur seal, Arctocephalus galapagoensis Heller. Adult male, young male, female and pup. Zoological Garden, San Diego, California. 1934] Townsend: Fur Seal of the Galapagos Islands 53 Fig. 20. Galapagos fur seal, Arctocephalus galapagoensis Heller. Adult male. Zoo- logical Garden, San Diego, California. 54 Zoologica: N. Y, Zoological Society [XVIII; 2 Fig. 21. Galapagos fur seal, Arctocephalus galapagoensis Heller. Adult male female and young male. Zoological Garden, San Diego, California. 1934] Townsend: Fur Seal of the Galapagos Islands 55 Fig. 22. Galapagos fur seal, Arctocephalus galapagoensis Heller. Adult female and young. Zoological Garden, San Diego, California Fig. 23. Fur sea,\s , Arctocephalus capensis, in East London Aquarium, South Africa. 56 Zoological N. Y. Zoological Society [XVIII; 2 Fig. 25. Lower. California fur seal, Arctocephalus townsendi Merriam. Adult male. Zoological Garden, San Diego, California. i^eUi gorfe Hoological g>ocietp Scientific Publications A completely classified list of the subjects included in each of the finished volumes of Zoologica, and all other publications of the New York Zoological Society will be furnished on application. Address H. R. MITCHELL Manager t Zoological Park 185th St. and Southern Boulevard, New York City ZOOLOGICA SCIENTIFIC CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE NEW YORK ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY VOLUME XVIIL NUMBER 3 ECOLOGY OF AN OCEANIC FRESH-WATER LAKE, ANDROS ISLAND, BAHAMAS, WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO ITS FISHES By C. M. Breder, Jr. PUBLISHED BY THE SOCIETY THE ZOOLOGICAL PARK, NEW YORK August, 1934 Jfem f orb Zonlngiral &ortft0 General Office: 101 Park Avenue, New York City Presidentf Madison Grant; Honorary President^ Henry Fairfield Osborn; Vive-Presidents, W. Redmond Cross and Kbrmit Roosevelt; Chairman, Executive Committee, Madison Grant; Treasurer, Cornelius R. Agnew; Secretary, William White Niles ^oarb of cias(£( of 1935 Henry Fairfield Osborn, Robert S. Brewster, Edward S. Harkness, Edwin Thorne, Irving K. Taylor, Harry Payne Bingham, Landon K. Thorne, J. Watson Webb, Oliver D. Filley, De Forest Grant, H. de B. Parsons, George F. Baker Clatfsf of 1936 Madison Grant, Wm. White Niles, Lewis R. Morris, Archer M. Huntington, George D. Pratt, Cornelius R. Agnew, Harrison Williams, Marshall Field, Ogden L. Mills, Vincent Astor, C. SuYDAM Cutting, Childs Frick ClajEftf of 1937 George Bird Grinnell, Frederic C. Walcott, George C. Clark, W. Redmond Cross, Henry Fairfield Osborn, Jr., George Gordon Battle, Bayard Dominick, Anson W. Hard, Robert Gordon McKay, Kermit Roosevelt, Grafton H. Pyne, John M. Schiff S>cienttfic ^taft W. Reid Blair, Director of the Zoological Park; William T. Hornaday, Director Emeritus; Charles H. Townsend, Director of the Aquarium; C. M. Breder, Jr., Assistant Director Aquarium; Raymond L. Ditmars, Curator of Mammals and Reptiles; William Beebe, Honorary Curator of Birds and Director of Department of Tropical Research; Lee S. Crandall, Curator of Birds; H. C. Raven, Prosector; Charles V. Noback, Veterinarian; Claude W. Leister, AssH to the Director and Curator, Educational Activities, Elwin R. Sanborn, Editor. €bttortal Committee Madison Grant, Chairman; W. Reid Blair William Beebe Elwin R. Sanborn, Secretary. Charles H. Townsend George Bird Grinnell Zoologica, Vol. XVIII, No. S ECOLOGY OF AN OCEANIC FRESH-WATER LAKE, ANDROS ISLAND, BAHAMAS, WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO ITS FISHES By C. M. Breder, Jr. (Figs. 26-35 incl.) Introduction Andros Island, the largest of the Bahama group, represents a certain ecological condition that should be of particular interest to biologists. It is the purpose of the present paper to call attention to this, and discuss the inferences that have been suggested by two short expeditions into the interior of the island. Although it is the closest to the mainland of the larger Bahama Islands, it is also, interiorly, the least known. This apparent paradox is exaggerated by the fact that it is also the only one supporting any considerable amount of fresh water. In spite of this attraction, its human inhabitants are few and mostly Negro, living a very primitive sort of life. One of the chief reasons for this sparseness of population on Andros Island is doubtless the lack of really good harbors for any but very small craft. The Bahamas generally, are not re- markable for excellent harbors, but even among them this large island is noted for its inhospitable coast. The expeditions, of which this paper is the chief report,^ were made possible through the generosity and scientific interest of Mr. Daniel Bacon. At considerable effort and expense he arranged for practically everything, leaving the writer largely free for his field studies. The visits to Andros Island extended from January 20 to January 30, 1932, and from January 20 to January 27, 1933. We are greatly indebted to Mr. E. Forsyth, Commissioner of Andros Island, who is one of the few white residents, living at Mangrove Cay, for his excellent advice and service in supplying us with an ex- ceptionally able, native guide. Mr. Lawrence D. Huntington accom- panied the party in 1932. His untiring efforts were invaluable to the success of the trip. 1 See Breder, 1933a, for a general account of these trips. 57 58 Zoologica: N. Y. Zoological Society [XVIII; 3 The itinerary of the first expedition, after the east side of the island was reached, by way of the Middle Bight, follows. The launch Escape which brought our party from Nassau, New Provi- dence, was anchored off Wide Opening. This body was entered by skiff and dory powered by an outboard motor. The first camp was pitched in an attractive grove of mahogany trees on the River Lees. Ducks and other water fowl were abundant at this place. The roots of the mangroves were found to be populated largely by Lutianus griseus and Spheroides testudineus. Small Anolis were not uncommon, and a single Hyla septentrionalis was found here. Be- hind the camp were found numerous small ponds of fresh water, which probably accounts for the presence of frogs so near salt water. The trip was continued out into Turner Sound. On entering this body, numerous large Tarpon atlanticus were seen disporting them- selves. Milk River was found to be closely overgrown, necessitating the use of machettes to allow passage of the boats. This dense growth was only along the immediate shore line, rapidly falling away on either side to a prairie-like country. The entrance into the fresh water of Lake Forsyth, which, judged by the current of Milk River, must be considerably higher than Turner Sound, brought the party into a distinctly different type of country of a particularly desolate aspect. Birds were practically negligible. A single Maryland yellow-throat was seen, and what was thought to be a night heron was heard one night. Otherwise, the only evident birds were two very attentive buzzards that perched on a dead tree at the camp, or followed the party on seining excursions. On full moonlight nights, the eerie quiet was emphasized by the long shad- ows cast by the jagged, eroded, old coral snags, and the three patiently waiting buzzards silhouetted against the moon. Other details of this environment are given in the body of the paper. The return was made by way of Goose River. This stream, considerably wider than the River Lees was found to be populated by large Ginglymostoma cirratum (Gmelin) and various Dasyatis, As soon as Turner Sound was entered, various birds began to re- appear, the Lake Forsyth region being distinctly separated from the s^lt water environment of this island. The itinerary of the second expedition, which did not go through to the east side of Andros, follows. After a short stop at Mangrove Cay the South Bight was penetrated to a nearly dry creek which was 1934] Breder: Ecology of an Oceanic Fresh-water Lake 59 reported to drain a fresh water pond during the rainy season. A skiff took us up this about a mile. Here it was necessary to abandon it and walk the remaining distance to the lake, about a mile, although the creek was not completely dry and had a fair flow. In South Bight and in the salt parts of the creek the following species of fish were noted: Ginglymostoma cirratum, Cyprinodon haconi, Tylosurus sp., Lutianus griseus and Ahudefduf marginatus (Bloch). A young hawksbill turtle was also seen. The South Bight lake region was found to be essentially similar to the Lake Forsyth area. The details of this will be discussed further on. Returning to South Bight, Grassy Creek, near the southern end of Andros, was next visited. This was entirely marine as far up as penetrated. At the farthest point inland that we visited, a deep hole of indigo blue was found to be filled with a variety of haemulids and lutianids. Haemulon sciurus (Shaw), Lutianus griseus and apodus, at least could be definitely identified. Other fishes, seen or collected in Grassy Creek, were: Ginglymostoma cirratum, Hypopryon brevirostris Poey, Albula vulpes (Linnaeus), Cyprinodon haconi, Hemiramphus hrasiliensis (Linnaeus) (at the mouth), Sphyraena barracuda (Walbaum), Epinephelus striatus (Bloch), Eucinostomus calif or niensis. Calamus hanjanado (Bloch and Schneider), Lutianus griseus, Ocyurus chrysurus (Bloch), Haemulon sciurus, Haemulon album Cuvier and Valenciennes, Pomacentrus leucostictus (Muller and Troschel), Scarus sp., Echeneis naucrates Linnaeus, Spheroides testudineus. On the reef, immediately off Fresh Creek, were caught: Lutianus analis, Haemulon album, Balistes vetula Linnaeus and Calamus hanjanado. This region is much more broken and irregular than northern Andros. A tide pool yielded the following: Eucinostomus calif or niensis, Lutianus apodus, Haemulon sp., Pomacentrus leucostictus, Ahudefduf marginatus, Ahudefduf analogous (Gill),^ Halichoeres bivittatus (Bloch) Gobius sopor ator Cuvier and Valenciennes, and Auchenopterus sp. Deep Creek, a little to the north, was next entered for a very short distance. At this place the following species were seen or collected. Sardinella macropthalmus (Ranzani), Lactophrys bicau- dalis (Linnaeus), and Echeneis naucrates. Mangrove Cay was then returned to and a small fresh water pool seined, in which Tarpon atlanticus (Cuvier and Valenciennes) 2 A new distributional record. See Breder, 1933c. 60 Zoologica: N. Y. Zoological Society [XVIII; 3 Fig. 26. Chart of Andros Island showing known and reported fresh waters. The latter are indicated by dotted lines, excepting on Man- grove Cay where they indicate the extensive dissection of the island. Actually, there are many other bodies of water, the reports of which were too vague to permit indicating on a chart. Drawn by T. Schewe. 1934] Breder: Ecology of an Oceanic Fresh-water Lake 61 were taken. This place is fully discussed by Breder, 1933a and 1933b. The full itinerary is indicated in Fig. 26. The Habitat A more complete description of Andros Island, than that given in the introduction, is necessary to understand the biological relation- ships. This island, which is truly oceanic and of old coral reef formation, is separated from the mainland by the Straits of Florida through which the Gulf Stream sweeps northward. At its narrowest part this represents a stretch of open ocean of about one hundred and twenty miles. The island, actually, is in the nature of an archipelago at the present time, but evidently existed as a single land mass sometime ago. Roughly, it is about as long as Long Island, N. Y., and about twice as wide. It is dissected into three main islands of considerable size, and a host of smaller ones grading down to tiny rocks just awash. On the eastern shore it slopes down abruptly to the very considerable depths of the Tongue of the Ocean which separates it from New Providence and the other more eastern islands. This coast is protected by a well developed, fringing reef, which has few good passes. Inside the reef, navigation is not particularly easy because of the irregular bottom and the general abundance of scarcely submerged coral heads. The western slope is vastly different, grading off gradually in a great marl flat that extends for miles to sea, making a close approach possible, even in small boats, only at a few localities. The exposed portion of the island is composed entirely of eroded coral rock, except where it is covered with marl either desiccated or in a pasty condition. The greatest height of this low island, about one hundred feet, is close to the eastern shore, and most of the drainage is to the west- ward. The coast line is well known to both naturalists and others, but the interior is inadequately charted and but one body of fresh water is indicated on present day maps. Actually, there are large amounts of fresh water, as well as salt and brackish inlets. If a full survey were made it might actually show nearly one-third the area to be covered with water. Such an impression is obtained when the island is viewed from the seaplane connecting Nassau with Miami. Besides the bodies of water we visited, known as Lake Forsyth and South Bight Lake, another has been indicated by Pilsbry and Black, 1930, (Lake Stafford), and a third was visited by Mr. Bacon some 62 Zoologica: N. Y. Zoological Society [XVIII; 3 Fig. 27. The densest stand of trees encountered in the Lake Forsyth region. 1934] Breder: Ecology of an Oceanic Fresh-water Lake 63 years ago, entering by way of Fresh Creek. In addition to these, questioning of the natives revealed consistent answers of other fresh water bodies. These are indicated in Figure 26. In addition, many of the smaller islands are groups much dissected by inlets of the sea. Dr. Maurice Black, in a personal communication, stated that he did ‘‘not see how the land surface of the Great Bahaman Bank can be older than the early Pleistocene, since the fresh water and terrestrial deposits of Andros and the other islands on that part of the Bank all appear to lie with a nonsequence on hard limestone without any Pleistocene species amongst their fossils.'’ He further remarks that according to his studies “the land area on the Great Bahama Bank has, quite recently, been vastly more extensive than it is at present, and that the distribution of the land molluscs is related to this ‘greater Andros,' rather than to the present con- figuration of the island." Also, “that the mollusc fauna of Lake Forsyth includes a large proportion of endemic species which must mean that there have been bodies of fresh water continuously present on the Bank for much longer than has been generally supposed." This water, which is truly fresh but naturally very “hard," being bedded on either old coral rock or marl mud, is not unpleasant as drinking water. Lake Forsyth is exceedingly turbid because of the great amount of fine marl mud in suspension. The Lake Forsyth region, as noted in the introduction, is distinctly different from the seacoast. Stands of pine are not un- common but they are rather dismal groves of small dimension for most part, and show the unmistakable ravages of numerous hurri- canes. The densest stand encountered is illustrated by Fig. 27 but this is quite exceptional. A more typical grove is shown in Fig. 28 which well illustrates much of the shore line of Lake Forsyth. One of the waiting buzzards, already alluded to, is here seen circling ahead of the party as it was returning to camp from a seining trip. Where the shore line was not as rugged as at the camp site, it was covered with a thick layer of partially dried marl, such as shown in Fig. 29. This was found to be treacherous in spots and must be of a very considerable thickness, in some places at least. These areas represent the greater extent of the lake during times of high water. The stream. Milk River, that connects this lake with the sea, is excessively turbid with marl, from which fact it derives its 64 Zoological N. Y. Zoological Society [XVIII; 3 1934] Breder: Ecology of an Oceanic Fresh-water Lake 65 local name. This turbidity is accounted for by the rather rapid movement of the water through it. One of the wider parts of this stream is illustrated by Breder, 1933a. The lake, approached via the South Bight, is essentially similar to Lake Forsyth, but appears to be considerably larger. The general form of it is indicated on the chart. Figure 26. Reports have it that there is another drainage into the lagoon near Grassy Creek, and a third to the west side of the island. The shore line and vegetation is reminiscent of Lake Forsyth but does not seem quite so dismal. This is probably accounted for by its greater proximity to the sea, although actually there is more evidence of recent hurri- cane damage here than at the former locality. The Invertebrate Fauna While it is not the purpose of the present communication to discuss the invertebrate fauna of the region under consideration, there are certain features of it that are of considerable importance to the ecology of the vertebrates. Insects of the camp-pest type were pleasingly absent. Mosqui- toes and flies were rare. A few wood roaches were uncovered in preparing camp and gathering firewood. Some butterflies and dragon-flies were constantly about. Spiders were scarce. A single scorpion was seen. It was a matter of some wonderment just what the lizards and frogs managed to And to support life. A few large land crabs and some terrestrial hermits were present but not numer- ous. Land snails, both Cerions and other genera, were decidedly common. See Pilsbry and Black, 1930. Aquatic invertebrates of macroscopic size likewise were scarce. Probably the most common were the nymphs of the dragon-flies, usually found half buried in the soft marl. A few dytiscids and red aquatic arachnids were seen. A few small crabs hid in rock holes. The only mollusks encountered were the empty shells of Physa. Regarding the aquatic species, it is especially to be borne in mind that all, except possibly the few crabs, are distinctly fresh water forms. This condition will be referred to later as these represent the only invasion of organisms that can be properly thought of as marking a fresh water environment. There has thus been little, if any, successful attempt of the abundant and nearby sea invertebrates to occupy this environment. The reasons therefor 66 Zoologica: N. Y. Zoological Society [XVIII; 3 Fig. 29. Flats of partially dried marl, studded with straggling mangroves, are not uncommon about Lake Forsyth and represent the extent of the enlarged lake during times of high water. will appear subsequently. It may be mentioned in this connection that a fresh-water plant, Utricularia has been reported from Andros. None whatever could be discovered in the territories visited, al- though the peculiar brackish-water algae, Batophora, was abundant. Reptiles The lizards were naturally more in evidence than frogs, giving what probably is only an appearance of greater abundance. How- ever, they could not be considered as common, as the lizards found in such places go. Such forms as were collected near Lake Forsyth have been identified by Dr. Noble of the American Museum of Natural History. They are Leiocephalus carinatus Gray, Anolis dis- tichoides Rosen, and Anolis hrunneus Cope. Most of these were found not more than fifty or seventy-five feet back from shore on broken aeolian rock which made collecting them difficult if not actually hazardous, to one’s lower extremities at least. It was noted that the specimens of Leiocephalus at no time were 1934] Breder: Ecology of an Oceanic Fresh-water Lake 67 seen to curl their tails. According to the natives, a form living along the seacoast persistently carries its tail curled up tightly, which they distinguish from ordinary lizards by the descriptive appellation, ‘'curly- tailed lizards.'' None of these was seen or collected, but on another trip with Mr. Bacon to the Berry Islands (1930), where, because of their small size no great distance can be reached from the sea, this type of lizard was abundant and no straight-tailed Leiocephalus was encountered. A typical example of Leiocephalus carinatus at Lake Forsyth is illustrated by Breder, 1933a, as well as a Berry Island Leiocephalus. Even those with regenerating tail-stubs at the Berry Islands, consistently showed this tendency. Furthermore, at no time were these Berry Island lizards seen to completely unwind their tails. When frightened, or interested in an insect, they would alternately tighten and relax this spiral, much after the fashion of the hairspring of a watch, but not quite so rapidly. Fig. 30. The Lake Forsyth region. Light circles indicate camp sites. Black circles indicate seining sites. Numerals indicate localities of water samples similarly numbered in Table II. Milk River marks the separation of the fresh water of Lake Forsyth and the sea water of Turner Sound. 68 Zoologica: N. Y. Zoological Society [XVIII; 3 On the southern part of Andros, there occurs Cyclura haealopha Cope. The natives know of this larger lizard and run it down with dogs, but apparently it is not sufficiently numerous to enter into their food economy to any extent at the present time. None was seen on our visits. Contrariwise, one of the buzzards that persisted in watching us at Lake Forsyth was seen to catch a live lizard {Leiocephalus ?). This act, unusual for such a bird, may be taken as indicative of the paucity of the larger forms of animal life in this region. A number of objects, thought to be lizard eggs, were found on the leaves and stems of the stunted mangrove bushes. On opening, these were seen to be the pupae of moths. The species, identified by Dr. C. H. Curran, is Alaradia slossoniae Packard. One of these is illustrated by Breder, 1933a. By obtaining the aid of small boys on Mangrove Cay, a con- siderable series of reptiles was secured on the second expedition. Lizards: Anolis distichoides Rosen; Anolis hrunneus Cope; Ameiva thoracica Cope. Snakes: Tropidophis pardalis androsi Stull; Alsophis vudii^ Cope. Amphibians As would be expected in a region showing such a relatively sparse insect life, few amphibians were encountered. Such frogs as were collected were taken at night or by tearing open such scrubby palms as were to be found. Only two species were taken, Hyla septentrionalis Boulenger and Eleutherodactylus ricordii (Dumeril and Bibron). These determinations have also been made by Dr. Noble who, in a personal communication, writes as follows. ‘‘I have carefully checked your Hyla against our large series of septen- trionalis and find that your specimens actually fall within the range of variation exhibited by this form. They are certainly much rougher than any specimens which have passed through my hands, but I find some specimens collected by Nichols in New Providence agree in every particular with your specimens.’' Hyla septentrionalis was also present on Mangrove Cay. Conversation with numerous natives uniformly revealed that in early May all of the small pools of Andros are exceedingly noisy with the calls of frogs. Those boys more given to prowling around * Apparently a new record from Andros. 1934] Breder: Ecology of an Oceanic Fresh-water Lake 69 inland were most emphatic. Consequently, it may well be that frogs are actually more common than the season of our visit would indicate. On the other hand it does not take many individuals to make up a chorus of an impressive volume on such silent nights as those encountered on inland Andros. The fishes collected in Lake Forsyth have already been listed, Breder, 1932, and discussed from the taxonomic standpoint. The fishes are the only vertebrate group that can be considered abundant in this environment, at least in the season of our visit. The following data were not considered in the purely taxonomic list above men- tioned. The information concerning size and number is relegated to Table I. Collecting sites are indicated in Fig. 30. 1. Cyprinodon haconi Breder All specimens examined were uniformly packed with Batophora generally broken down to little more than a brown paste. In quiet pools males could frequently be seen pursuing females, in a manner not unlike that of C. variegaius in the latitude of New York, a short time before the full nuptial colors are assumed. Fig. 31. 2. Gambusia manni Hubbs Food in this species was essentially similar to that of the preceding. Courtship activity could be frequently observed. Fishes Fig. 31. Cyprinodon haconi Breder. 70 Zoologica: N . Y . ZoologicahSociety [XVIII; 3 3. Strongylura notata forsythia Breder Undeveloped sexually. The intestinal contents consisted of fish remains, and one dragon-fly nymph. Fig. 32. 4. Strongylura timucu (Walbaum) The single specimen of this species, a female of 290 mm. s. 1., was approaching ripeness. The intestinal contents consisted of the badly macerated remains of some small fish,* (Gambusia or Cy- prinodon ?). The body cavity held two Filaria (?). 5. Chriodorus atherinoides Goode and Bean This species was seen to leap on occasion and showed considerable agility in escaping the seine by passing over the cork line in a mullet- like fashion. The gonads were nearly ripe. The food was similar to that of Eucinostomus. Batophora either breaks down with extreme rapidity or else most of it is ‘'mouthed'’ and rejected, only the adherent organisms being retained. 6. Caranx latus Agassiz The largest were undeveloped sexually. The stomach was packed with large numbers of small Acanthocephalans. The only food found consisted of the triturated remains of Ashes. 7. Lutianus griseus (Linnaeus) Both specimens (175 and 124 mm. s. 1.) were undeveloped sexually. The body cavity contained numerous nematodes. The digestive tract contained the mangled remains of Ashes and one dragon-fly nymph. 8. Eucinostomus calif or niensis (Gill) None of these fishes appeared to be mature. The intestinal tracts were packed for most part with fragments of Batophora, diatoms, and to a lesser extent the remains of associated animal organisms, mostly small crustaceans. 1934] Breder: Ecology of an Oceanic Fresh-water Lake 71 9. Eucinostomus gula (Cuvier and Valenciennes) On detailed examination of the large series of this genus (587), about fifty proved to be the present form. As their stomach contents was identical with that of E. calif or niensis, and their range of sizes not nearly so great, these two related species are considered to- gether in Table I. 10. Spheroides testudineus (Linnaeus) The single specimen of 155 mm. s. 1. was a male approaching ripe- ness. There was no food in the digestive tract. 11. Gohiomorus dormitor Lacepede Remains of very small fish. Nematodes in body cavity. Sexually undeveloped. 12. Lophogohius androsensis Breder Males with a small genital palp. Nearly ripe. Remains of small insects and crustaceans in digestive tract. Fig. 33. Fig. 33. Lophogohius androsensis Breder. Two very striking peculiarities about these fishes are apparent. The one is their very presence in such large quantities in a lake of fresh water, since they are typically marine or at least brackish- water forms. The other is the problem of the basic food supply, in a region relatively barren of objects which could form such a basis, as is indicated under the previous heading. Insects or other life falling into the water could not possibly support the evidently well fed and numerous fishes, some of which are strictly predacious. Stomach examination reveals the source at once, however, for at least five of the species feed directly on the mat of Batophora flooring 72 Zoologica: N. Y. Zoological Society [XVIII; 3 the bottom of this lake, even to the deepest parts sounded (about six feet). Breder, 1933a, illustrates this plant. The species sub- sisting on this vegetation include both the smallest and the most numerous. Gamhusia manni, Cyprinodon haconi, Chriodorus atheri- noides and Eucinostomus californiensis and gula, were all found to be well filled with this plant. The first two were not found near larger forms, keeping for most part to shallow water or in pools cut off from the main lake, and consequently do probably not form an important source of food for piscivorous species. Chriodorus, while freely ranging and occasionally seen to leap as if pursued by other fishes, are probably not numerous enough to be of any particular importance. Eucinostomus, however, is ubiquitous and a great variety of sizes is available, specimens having been collected that ranged from 27 to 127 mm. in standard length. This Species clearly forms the connecting link in the food chain between vegetation and the purely predacious forms, such as Caranx, Lutianus and Strongy- lura either directly or through the intermediary of other predacious fishes. Table I clearly indicates this. An examination of speci- mens of Batophora showed it to be well coated with diatoms and a generally rich fauna of micro-organisms, both animal and plant, many of which certainly go to enhance the general food value. The data given in the foregoing annotated list and in Table I, form the basis for a consideration of the food chain in this isolated lake. If the number of species, number of specimens collected; their weight, or their maximum, minimum or average lengths are grouped according to the three types of food consumed, certain consistent conditions are at once apparent. The second part of Table I shows these relationships, and the remainder gives them calculated from a proportional viewpoint. The data need hardly be elaborated upon. While the collection is not sufficiently extensive to assume any great degree of accuracy for the figures as standing, they certainly represent a numerical approach to the proportions of the various elements in the food chain. That is to say, the number of specimens and the total weight of the vegetable eaters are greater than that of the piscivorous, while the average weight and maximum, minimum and average lengths are all greater in the latter. This is the expected relationship between predators and their food. If those few forms which feed on invertebrates are considered included as food objects for the fish-eating species. 1934] Breder: Ecology of an Oceanic Fresh-water Lake 73 TABLE I. THE FISH POPULATION AND ITS FOOD No. Species No. of Specimens Weight in Grams Standard length in mm. Total Aver- age Max. Min. Mode Aver- age 1 Cyprinodon baconi 47 13.8 0.3 33.5 12.0 17.5 17.1 2 Gambusia manni 15 3.4 0.2 25.0 15.0 18.5 17.9 3 Strongylura notata 22 316.7 14.4 245.0 105.0 180.0 188.6 4 Strongylura timucu 1 32.0 32.0 — — 290.0 — 5 Chriodorus atherinoides 5 26.8 5.4 105.0 77.0 — 89.8 6 Caranx latus 23 1246.0 54.2 180.0 92.0 130.0 131.3 7 Lutianus griseus 2 163.9 81.9 175.0 124.0 — 139.5 8 Eucinostomus californien- 1 sis ^ 587 2231 . 1 3.6 127.0 27.0 65.0 83.2 9 E. gula J 10 Sphoeroides testudineus 1 955.7 955.0 ■ — 155.0 — 11 Gobiomorus dormitor 3 23.6 7.8 110.0 87.0 59.0 12 Lophogobius androsensis 4 9.6 2.4 43.0 29.0 38.2 No. of Nos, Food species 1, 2, 5, 8, 9, Vegeta- tion 5 654 2265 . 1 3.5 127.0 12.0 52.0 3,4, ( S, 7, 11 Fishes 5 51 1782.2 34.9 290.0 87.0 — 161.7 10, 12 Inverte- brates 2 5 965.3 193.0 155.0 29.0 86.6 Proportional calculations with invertebrate feeders reduced to unity Food Vegetation 2.5 130.8 2.3 + 0.0 + 0.8 + 0.4 + 0.6 + Fishes 2.5 10.2 1.7 + 0.2 - 1.8 + 2.9 + 1.8 + Invertebrates 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Proportional calculations with fish feeders reduced to unity Vegetation and Invertebrates 1.4 12.9 + 1.8 + 5.6 + 0.9 + 0.5 - 0.9- Fish 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1 1.0 which they doubtless are, the differences become still more marked. However, mollusk and insect eaters are few, as indeed they must be in such an environment, and their importance is relatively slight. Very likely the food requirements determine to a considerable measure just what fishes may successfully establish themselves in such a lake. First, with the establishment of a dense vegetative growth, the plant-eating forms should appear, to be followed by the predacious species. As the marine invertebrates do not enter, for reasons to be subsequently discussed, those fishes which feed on them must be held off until such a time when fresh water substitutes 74 Zoologica: N. Y. Zoological Society [XVIII; 3 can establish themselves. Although the data derived from the examination of stomach contents of the specimens collected can hardly be considered as sufficient to warrant such conclusions, the foods of the types represented — in some cases the exact species — are well known. It is thus evident that the fishes of Lake Forsyth, in the final analysis, are almost entirely supported by the dense beds of Batophora and the microscopic and nearly microscopic organisms dwelling in its fronds. The fishes in the lake at South Bight were similar to the Forsyth fishes. Cyprinodon haconi Breder. Fairly common but none as large as the type specimen. In the nearly salt water this species was also present, probably due to the short creek connecting this lake with the sea. The marine localities are noted in the introduction. Fig. 34. Gambusia hubbsi Breder. Gamhusia huhhsi Breder. Common at one spot only. As noted in the original description (Breder, 1934), this species presented a much different appearance in the field than its close relative G. manni seen in Lake Forsyth and in Lake Killarney on New Providence. They were tinted with a definite steel blue and were decidedly larger. Aside from this their behavior was notably different. G. manni, as seen by us, was a very timid fish, whereas G. huhbsi was com- paratively very tame. Fig. 34. Strongylura notatus forsythia Breder. Four examples were all entirely within the range of variation, marking this race. It is 1934] Breder: Ecology of an Oceanic Fresh-water Lake 75 noteworthy that no S, notatus were seen on Andros in either year excepting these in fresh water. Eucinostomus calif or niensis (Gill). Common wherever seining was carried on. Lutianus griseus (Linnaeus). Much more common and larger than in Lake Forsyth. As there is probably a similar food chain in this body of water it seems likely that the presence of these larger and more numerous snappers may account for the relative paucity of the other species. The fishes of a small pool on Mangrove Cay are fully discussed by Breder, 1933b. They consisted solely of small Tarpon atlanticus. In the stomach of some were found fragments of Cyprinodon haconi? This pool differed from the other fresh water localities encountered, in that it was foul and turbid with dark colored detritus and agreed with other West Indian localities harboring young tarpon. For a discussion of this specialized and restricted type of environment, the paper above mentioned should be referred to. Chemical Nature of Lake Forsyth The most striking feature of the fish fauna of Lake Forsyth is that bearing on the chemical nature of these peculiar waters. The analytical data are given in Tables II and III, from which it is at once apparent that the water is ‘ ‘fresh ” in the ordinary sense of the term. The freezing point and specific gravity alone are enough to establish the small amount of salts in solution. Com- parisons with various municipal waters of the continental United States (Clarke, 1924) shows, however, that although the amounts of material in solution are not very evident by the two above men- tioned methods, there is still considerably more in solution than in most fresh waters of North America. There are, however, several river waters with a considerably greater amount of dissolved material {e. g. Arkansas, Pecos and Santa Maria Rivers). They are all in the middle or southwestern sections of the continent. The Atlantic coast drainage is very definitely lower. Waters of closed basins and mineral springs are mostly higher, and in many cases very much higher. Furthermore, a study of the table shows the substances in solution to be substantially in the relative proportion that they occur in the sea, with the notable exceptions of chloride and the TABLE II. CHEMICAL ANALYSIS* 76 Zoologica: N. Y. Zoological Society [XVIII; 3 I I I I I I I I I I i 05 00 to 0 05 + w pq 05 fO (>J 00 0 to CO l> CO Mg 10 05 00 (N 05 CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 50 00 0 0 0 0 0 d d 0 0 d CO 00 00 00 00 CO 00 CO CO 05 05 05 (M 05 t> 1> 05 cS 0 05 05 CO CO (N i> 0 0 0 0 CO CO 05 05 CO (N CD 0 0 i> c3 0 0 05 05 »o 10 50 50 0 50 t>. 00 00 0 0 iM 0 CO 50 l> rH 0 (N (N (N t> 0 00 ^ 0 0 lO 0 0 CO 0 05 0 i> 50 50 6^ CD CD 0 iC (N 0 i> CO 0 ’-1 ’-1 CO (M 05 CO 05 0 K 0 0 0 d CO 05 rH CO ,H 0 (N 6 iM (N CO 05 CO 05 CO 50 rH CO CD (N 50 50 t^t>»t>t^t^t>t>l>00 00 00 till I I (M (N O I I I I f T3 O X! ^ 2 ' O 4U cc tn : : : : : o fe -2S vl-i 2 S o fl p Pm ® O ?tl c3 O J cS c3 ® (NMTi<»OCOt>cX)a>OrH = > ft t 00 (25 (N tH 05 CC CD o CO 05 CO 1> l> l> rH 05 C30 00 05 05 05 lO lO »0 lO »o w M CO 05 O CD W TiH rH CO 05 ■^■^(MO'-iC05O5r r-lrH(N(MCO(N 05 05 5 rH CO > 50 0 Ttl'<*lr-lrH05rH'<^HOO r-tl-l00 00T-ll>T-llOO5O5t> rt^TjiTii'^iCTt00rfir-(O(N OOOOOOOOOOlOOOOOOt^ (N 6l (N (N ■^OTt^COCOOOOO'^OOCO QOCDOOfOCOOOTf(N(M(N00rHl> COCDC0050000t1HOO'^05 00 lOiOOiOiOOOOOOCO T-lrH(NlM'-lrHTHrH050Tt( oooooooooqeoo ooooooooooo (NC0'!t»OC0I^00 05O * Determinations made by J. Hanache. t These numbers refer to localities shown in Figure 10, excepting No. 1 1 which is on New Providence. t Cl -0.35 for Br2 and I2 gives slightly lower values. § Includes traces of 'N02, and 'NO3, and 0.2 mM of PO4. 11 Reduced to 15° C. 1934] Breder: Ecology of an Oceanic Fresh-water Lake 77 sulphate radical, the former of which plays such an important role in the ocean. This comparison is more forcefully brought out in Table III, which gives the same data reduced to terms of percent. While there is always a considerably greater amount of chlorine than sodium detectable in ocean water, indicating the presence of other chlorides,^ the excess is very slight in water from Lake Forsyth. In ocean water less than three-fifths of the Cl can be opposed to the Na, necessitating that other chlorides must account for the rest. In Lake Forsyth the Cl in excess of the Na is exceed- ingly slight, something less than one-tenth of the total Cl not being opposed by Na. The sulphate radical, on the other hand, is about TABLE III. CHEMICAL PROPORTIONS OF LAKE FORSYTH* Ocean f Average Logger- head t Key Ocean Nos. 9-10 Average Lake Killarney No. 11 Milk River No. 8 Lake Forsyth Nos. 1-7 Average Cl 55.29 55.24 54.03 58.08 33.77 33.16 Br 0.19 .17 — SO4 7.69 7.54 7.82 4.45 25.22 22.91 CO3 0.21 .34 .26 1.24 6.44 6.47 Na 30.59 30.80 32.89 32.83 25.01 30.43 K 1.11 1.10 .98 1.12 5.89 3.89 Ca 1.20 1.22 1.32 1.05 3.50 3.00 Mg 3.72 3.59 2.70 1.23 0.17 0.14 100 . 00 100 . 00 100 . 00 100 . 00 100 . 00 100 . 00 Salinity 33,010.0 p.p.m. to 37,370.0 35,490.0 36,313.0 7,551.0 1,427.5 1,451.8 * Calculated by J. Hanache. t Mean of 77 samples. From Clarke, 1924, after Dittmar, 1884. t Sample off Loggerhead Key, Fla. From Clarke, 1924, after Steiger, 1910. three times as great in Lake Forsyth as in the ocean. The carbonate radical shows an even greater discrepancy, being over twelve times as large. The other items are also larger except magnesium which is exceptionally low. These remarks obviously refer to the relative amounts as expressed in Table III. The quantities of salts in Lake Forsyth are of course all much less than in the ocean, as is indicated in the expression of salinity. This is likewise indicated in Table II in terms of absolute quantity excepting the comparatively uniform ■1 This is true even after a deduction has been made for other halogens which in the analysis have not been separated. 78 Zoologica: N. Y. Zoological Society [XVIII; 3 carbonate radical which is only relatively increased in Table III. It is clear that this water is then deficient in chlorides, as compared with the sea, and high in sulphates and carbonates which give the lake a decidedly different chemical constitution. Despite the low concentration of salts in this lake, a variety of marine fishes was found to inhabit it, as already mentioned. In order to better understand these conditions, certain laboratory experiments were carried on which are discussed in a latter section. In addition to the foregoing chemical peculiarities of this body of fresh water, a rather striking phenomenon could be seen almost at any time in any cove into which the wind happened to be blowing. A thick layer of white scum would rapidly accumulate under such conditions, generally proportional to the strength of the wind and the consequent wave action as well as the duration of its prevalence from one quarter. A typical cove so clogged is illustrated by Breder, 1933a. With a continued wind this froth would pile up on the shore, in places to the depth of two feet. As it dried, great chunks of it would be torn away in the breeze and be carried further inland, the small masses caught by an erratic gust sometimes lodging far up in the pine trees. When piled up on the shore, the new froth when still white greatly resembled a well-made meringue. Breder, 1933a, shows an example of this formation. Due to the accumulation of dust on the sticky surface, the mass soon takes on a grayish tinge. This and the desiccating effect of the dry air causes a firm crust to form, somewhat protecting the interior. In time the material does thoroughly dry, due to cracking of the crust, and there remains a soft cake-like material. This substance is smooth and slippery, distinctly giving the impression of soap fragments. Analysis yielded no fatty acids or other saponified or saponifiable substances. Although the samples were inadequate for a complete analysis, it is safe to infer that much of the material was CaCOs (marl). CaCOs and NaHCOs in a test tube will produce a froth not dissimilar in appearance and with the same soap-like feeling. No matter what may be the exact nature of the material, it represents a peculiar return of substances direct from a body of water to the land. Commonly, the run-off of the soil is thought of in its effect in supplying materials to the aquatic environment. Here, contrari- wise, is a case where material is spread out on the shore directly 1934] Breder: Ecology of an Oceanic Fresh-water Lake 79 from the water. The rain in turn dissolves or dislodges the material and eventually carries it back to the lake. There has been considerable discussion as to the manner of formation of the extensive marine marl beds on the west side of Andros Island and elsewhere. The present data on Lake Forsyth are suggestive, in connection with these large deposits of CaCOs. Harvey, 1929, and Clarke, 1924, both discuss such views at some length. The current ideas concerning the origin of these flats may be summarized as follows. Origin Organic Process Bacterial activity Albumen of animals f Releases >{ Ammonium [Carbonates Precipitates CaCOs Remains of CaCOs — Ground up by wave action shells, etc. Inorganic Streams entering the sea carry CaCOs in suspension Ca in heavy solution which pre- cipitates CaCOs when added to sea water Result Marl Aragonite (unstable and largely dissap- pears) Possibly all of them contribute, as none seems to be mutually exclusive. Since the highest land is close to the eastern shore and the drainage mostly to the west, practically all of the run-off drains in that direction. Since, as above noted, this island at some earlier date was larger than it now is, and as an abysmal depth occurs to the east — Tongue of the Ocean — it follows that the island’s extent must have been largely to the westward, probably giving even more drainage in that direction. This, together with the indications of a larger amount of fresh water than has been generally credited, which is necessarily charged heavily with lime, would suggest that such in itself might be a sufficient causation. Additional CaCOs is taken into solution with every rainfall and precipitated, as evapora- tion progresses, between rains. Both that in solution and suspension is continually urged seaward into a medium already saturated in respect to Ca. Wave action remains to account for its spreading evenly over this relatively shoal area. 80 Zoologica: N. Y. Zoological Society [XVIII; 3 5m (X) 02 o ^ ^ o +S o ©© cu © M © «t-l _ ^ o .a ■>s ^ M T3 © §. S « 2 ^ '2 s >» s ^ •2 ^ ■2 © © © i&s a , 'o ^ M O M bC ^ o S P4 • o o3 3 S ^ © i 00 O ocietp Scientific Publications A completely classified list of the subjects included in each of the finished volumes of Zoologica, and all other publications of the New York Zoological Society will be furnished on application. Address H. R. MITCHELL Manager, Zoological Park 185th St. and Southern Boulevard, New York City Zoologica, Volume XVIII, Numbers 1-3 Abufdefduf, 4 analogous (Gill), 59 marginatus (Bloch), 59 saxdtilis, 81 Academy (sealing schooner), 47 Acanthocephalans, 70 Acaras, 14 Aequidens coeruleo punctata (Kner and Stein- dachner), 1, 2, 14 latifrons (Steindachner), 1-42 (Figs. 1-14 inch) for paged outline, see Cichlid fish Alaradia slossoniae Packai’d, 68 Albula vulpes (Linnaeus), 59 Algae, 66, 86 Alsophis vudii Cope, 68 Ameiurus, 4, 24 Ameiva thoracica Cope, 68 American Museum of Natural History, 45, 66 Amphibians, Andros Island, 68-69 Andros Island, Bahamas, 57-88 (Figs. 26-35 inch) chart showing known and reported waters, (Fig. 26), 60 see also Ecology of an Oceanic Fresh- water Lake. Anthony, H. E., 47 Angelichthys, 82 ciliaris, 81 Anisotremus virginicus, 81 Anolis, 58 brunneus Cope, 66, 68 distichoides Rosen, 66, 68 Aquaria, diagrams of, (Fig. 1), 29; (Fig. 3), 31 Aquarium simulating Lake Forsyth water condition, description, 81—83 photograph, (Fig. 35), 80 reaction of fishes in, 83 Arachnids, red aquatic, 65 Arctocephalus capensis, (Fig. 23), 55 galapagoensis Heller, 43-56 (Figs. 15-25 inch) habits, 46 measurements, carcase of male, 49 measurements, skull of male, 47-49 record of fur seals taken at Gala- pagos Islands, 47 philippi Peters, 43 townsendi Merriam, (Fig. 25), 56 Atkins, W. R. S., 82, 87 Auchenopterus sp., 59 Bacon, Daniel, 57, 61, 67 Bahama Islands, calcium in waters of, 85 fauna of, 84 Balistes vetula Linnaeus, 59 Barranquilla, Colombia, 2 Bathy stoma striatum, 81 Batophora, 66, 70, 71, 72, 74, 85, 86 Beck, R. H., 43, 47 Beldt, O. C., 11, 12, 13, 16, 26 Berry Islands, 67 Betta pugnax Cantor, 23 Black, Dr. Maurice, 63 Boleosoma, 4 Breder, C. M., Jr., 12, 14, 16, 22, 23, 24, 26, 67, 68, 69, 72, 78, 81, 85, 87 Breder, C. M., Jr., Ecology of An Oceanic Fresh-water Lake, Andros Island, Bahamas, with Special Reference to Its Fishes, 57-88 (Figs. 26-35 inch) for paged outline see Ecology of an Oceanic Fresh-water Lake Breder, C M., Jr., An Experimental Study of the Reproductive Habits and Life History of the Cichlid Fish, Aequidens Latifrons (Steindachner) , 1-42 (Figs. 1-14 inch) for paged outline see Cichlid Fish Breder, C. M., Jr., and T. H. Howley, 82, 83, 87 Breder, C. M., Jr., and H. W. Smith, 82, 87 Butterflies, 65 Buzzards, 58, 63, 68 Calamus banjanado (Bloch and Schneider), 59 Callorhinus alascanus, 45, 46 (Fig. 24), 56 Caranx, 72 latus Agassiz, 70, 73 Carassius auritus, 82 (Fig. 35), 80 Centrarchids, 15, 23 Centropristes striatus, 81 Cerions, 65 Chriodorus atherinoides Goode and Bean, 70, 72, 73 Chute, W., 14, 26 Cichlasoma nigrofasciata Gunther, 9 Cichlid Fish, An Experimental Study of the Reproductive Habits and Life History of the, Aequidens Latifrons (Steindach- ner), by C. AI. Breder, Jr., 1-42 (Figs. 1-14 inch) bibliography, 26 discussion, 22-24 egg laying, 9-12, 24, 27 (Fig. 2), 30 excavating habits, 5-7, 15, 22, 24, 25 (Fig. 1), 29 exceptional behavior items, 19-22 fighting reactions, 2-5, 7, 8, 25 (Table I), 27 habits of the adult fish, 3-7 habits of the young fish, 2-3 killing off excess fish, 4, 25 mating, 7-12 parental care, 12-17, 24, 25 photographs, 32-42 reactions of the young, 17-19 reproduction data, (Table II), 27 summary, 24-25 Cichlidae, 1, 24 Clarke, F. W., 75, 79. 87 Coates, C. W., 1, 2, 5, 9, 13, 14, 22, 26 Cooper, L. H. N., 82, 87 Coral reef formation, 4, 61, 84 Crabs, land, 65 terrestrial hermit, 65 Crustaceans, 13, 70, 71 Curran, Dr. C. H., 68 Cyclopterus, 4 Cyclura baealopha Cope, 68 Cyprinodon baconi Breder, 59, 72, 73 Darwin, Charles, 46 Dasyatis, 58 Deep Creek, Andros Island, 59 Delano (1800), 46 Dragon-flies, 65 Dunn, E. R., 84, 88 Dunton, S. C., 2 Dytiscids, 65 Echeneis naucrates Linnaeus, 59 Ecology of An Oceanic Fresh-water Lake, Andros Island, Bahamas, with Special Reference to Its Fishes, by C. M. Breder, Jr., 57-88 (Figs. 26-35 inch) [891 5 ‘SSb 90 Zoologica [Volume XVIII amphibians, 68-69 bibliography, 87-88 discussion, 84-86 expeditions, 57 itinerary of, 58 experimental data, 81-83 fishes, 69-75, 84-86 habitat, 61-68 population of island, 57 reptiles, 66-68 summary, 86 see also Forsyth, Lake Egg-laying vertebrates, 15 Eggs, cichiid, color, 12 hatching, 12, 13, 15, 16-17, 27 laving, 9-12, 24, 27 (Fig. 2), 30 number, 12, 24, 27 Eisinger, A., 2 Eleutherodactijlus ricnrdii (Dumeril and Bibron), 68 Engmann, P., 1, 26 Epinephelus striatus (Bloch), 59 Escape (launch), 58 Eucinostomus, 70, 72 californiensis (Gill,) 59, 70, 71, 72, 73, 75 gala Cuvier and Valenciennes, 71, 72, 73 Eupomotis gibbosus, 82 Fanning (“Voyage”), 47 Fauna, Andros Island, 86 invertebrate, Andros Island, 65-66 Filaria (?), 70 Fishes, Andros Island, 69-75, 84-86 data on specimens, 69-75 table of fish population and food, 73 Forsyth, E. (Commissioner), 57 Forsvth, Lake, Andros Island, 58, 61, 63, 65, 67 chemical analysis of, (Table II), 76 chemical nature of, 75 chemical proportions of, (Table III), 77 dense trees in region of, (Fig. 27), 62 expedition’s camp at, (Fig. 28), 64 experimental data, 81-83 fishes of, 69-75, 84-86 population and food, (Table I), 73 froth on shore, 78 region, map, (Fig. 30), 67 Fresh Creek, Andros Island, 59 Frogs, Andros Island, 65, 66, 68-69 Fundulus, 82 Fur seal, California, (Fig. 25), 56 Northern, 45 (Fig. 24), 56 Fur Seal of the Galapagos Islands, The, Arctocephalus galapagoensis Heller, by Charles Haskins Townsend, 43-56 (Figs. 15-25 incl.) habits, 46 measurements, carcase of male, 49 measurements, skull of male, 47-49 record, 47 Gaffney, Captain F. M., 47 Galapagos Islands, Fur Seal of, 43-56 (Figs. 15-25 incl.) for paged outline see Fur seal of the Galapagos Islands Gambusia. hubbsi Breder, 74 (Fig. 34), 74 inanni Hubbs, 69, 72, 73, 74 Ginglgmostoma cirratum. (Gmelin), 58, 59 Gnathgpops, 4 Gobiomorus dormitor Lacepede, 71, 73 Gobius soporntor Cuvier and Valenciennes, 59 Goose River, Andros Island, 58 chemical analysis of, 76 Grassy Creek, Andros Island, 59 Great Abaco Island, Bahamas, 84 Great Inagua Island, Bahamas, 84 Guadalupe Island, Lower California, 45, 46 Haemulids, 59 Haemulon album Cuvier and Valenciennes, 59 sciurus (Shaw), 59 sp., 59 Halichoeres bivittatus (Bloch), 59 Hanache, J., 76, 77 Hancock, Captain G. Allan, 43, 45, 47 Hancock (sealing schooner), 47 Haplochromis, 2 strigigena Pfeffer, 23 Haritwen, Captain, 47 Harvey, H. W., 79, 88 Hector (whaling ship), Narborough Island, 47 Heliotropism of Aequidens larvae, 17, 18, 24 Heller, Edmund, 43, 46 Hemirarnphus brasiliensis (Linnaeus), 59 ■ Heron, night, 58 Hildebrand, S. F., and W. C. Schroeder, 85, 88 Hippocampus hudsonius, 81 Howley, T. H., 27 Huntington, Lawrence D., 57 Flyla septentrionalis Boulenger, 58, 68 Hypopryon brevirostris Poey, 59 Infanticide of fish, 5, 14, 16-17 Insects, Andros Island, 65-66 Insular fauna development, 86 Juan Fernandez Island, Chili, 43 Julia E. Whalen (sealing schooner), 43, 47 Keys, A. B , 82, 88 Killarney, Lake, New Providence Island, 74 chemical analysis of, 76 Lactophrys bicaudalis (Linnaeus), 59 Land-locked Pool, Andros Island, chemical analysis of, 76 Lebistes, 5, 22 reticulatus, 17 Lees River, Andros Island, 58 Leiocephalus carinatus Gray, 66, 67 Lepomis, 4 Lizards, 65, 66, 67, 68 “curly- tailed,” 67 regenerating tail-stubs of, 67 Lophogobius androsensis Breder, 71, 73 (Fig. 33), 71 Lutianids, 59 Lutianus, 72 analis, 59 apodus, 59, 81, 82 (Fig. 35), 80 griseus (Linnaeus), 58, 59, 70, 73, 75 synagris, 81 Mahogany trees, 58 Mangrove Cay, Andros Island, 57, 58, 59, 68 Mangroves, 58, 68 (Fig. 29), 66 Marl fiats, 63, 65 (Fig. 29), 66 origin of, 79 Masafuero Island, Chili, 43 Merriam, 46 Milk River, Andros Island, 58, 63 chemical analysis of, 76 map, (Fig. 30), 67 Mollusks, 65 Monocirrhus polyacanthus Heckel, 14 Morrell (“Voyage”), 47 Moth pupae, 68 Nematodes, 70, 71 New Providence Island, Bahamas, 58, 61, 68, 74 New York Aquarium, 81 Nichols, 68 Noble, Dr., 66, 68 Noyes, Captain W. P., 43, 47 Index 91 Numbers 1-3] Ocyurus chrysurus (Bloch), 59 [ Oral incubation, 1, 2, 23, 24 ii i Panama waters, aequidens in, 2, 12, 19 silting of, 14 Physa, 65, 85 Pilsbry, H. A., 85, 88 Pilsbry, H. A., and M. Black, 61, 65, 88 Plymouth Aquarium, 82 Point Conception, California, 46 i Pomacentrus, 4, 82 leucoris, 9 leucostictus (Muller and Troschel), 59, 81 (Fig. 35), 80 Pribilof Islands, Bering Sea, 45, 46 Purser’s Point, Andros Island, chemical analysis of waters off, 76 Reed, Captain Charles W., 47 Reptiles, Andros Island, 66-68 Riley. C. F. C., 17, 26 Sayittaria, 85 San Diego, California, Zoological Society, 45 Sardinella macropthalmus (Ranzani), 59 Scarus sp., 59 Schewe, T., drawing by, 60 Schoenebeck, K. J., 1, 26 Scorpion, 65 Sex recognition of cichlid fish, 7, 25 Silting of streams, 14, 16 Siluridae, 24 Smith, Captain Samuel, 47 Snails, land, 65 Snodgrass, Robert E., 43 Spheroides testudineus (Linnaeus), 58, 59, 71, 73 Sphyraena barracuda (Walbaum), 59 Spiders, 65 Stanford University zoological department, 43 Stafford, Lake, 61 Stenotomus chrysops, 81 Straits of Magellan, 45 Strongylura, 72 notata forsythia Breder, 70, 73, 74-75 (Fig. 32), 70 timucu (Walbaum), 70, 73 Tarpon atlanticus (Cuvier and Valenciennes), 58, 59 Temperature of water, in breeding of cichlid fish, 12, 27 in fighting of cichlid fish, 5 Tilapia, 2 heudeloti Dumeril, 23 Townsend, Charles Haskins, The Fur Seal of the Galapagos Islands, Arctocephalus qalapagoensis Heller, 43- 56 (Figs. 15-25 inch) for paged outline see Fur Seal of the Galapagos Islands Tropidophis pardalis androsi Stull, 68 Turner Sound, Andros Island, 58 map, (Fig. 30), 67 Turtle, hawksbill, 59 Tuyra basin, Panama, 85 Tylosurus sp., 59 Umbra, 14 Utricularia, 66, 85 Valero III (cruiser), 43, 47 Water fowl, 58 Wegeforth, Dr. H. M., 45 Wood roaches, 65 Worms destructive to fish eggs, 13 Xyrichthys, 4 Yellow-throat, IMaryland, 58 ZOOLOGICA f:' SCIENTIFIC CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE NEW YORK ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY VOLUME XIX APRIL 3, 1935— DECEMBER 31, 1935 Numbers 1-6 Inclusive PUBLISHED BY THE SOCIETY THE ZOOLOGICAL PARK, NEW YORK j?ctu ^orfe Zoological ^ocietp General Office: 101 Park Avenue, New York City (0fficersi President, Madison Grant Vice-Presidents, W. Redmond Cross and Kermit Roosevelt Chairman, Executive Committee, Madison Grant W. Reid Blair, Director William T. Hornaday, Director Emeritus Raymond L. Ditmars, Curator of Mammals and Reptiles Lee S. Crandall, Curator of Birds Charles V. Noback, Veterinarian Claude W. Leister, Ass^t to the Director and Curator, Educational Activities H. C. Raven, Prosector Edward R. Osterndorff, Photographer William Bridges, Editor and Curator of Publications Aquarium Charles H. Townsend, Director C. M. Breder, Jr., Assistant Director department of tlTroptcal ^esiearcf) William Beebe, Director and Honorary Curator of Birds John Tee-Van, General Associate Gloria Hollister, Research Associate Treasurer, CORNELIUS R. Agnew Secretary, Henry Fairfield Osborn, Jr. Scientific Staff Hoological ^arfe Cbitorial Committee Madison Grant, Chairman W. Reid Blair William Beebe Charles H. Townsend George Bird Grinnell William Bridges TITLES OF PAPERS PAGE 1 — The distribution of certain whales as shown by logbook records of American whaleships Charles Haskins Townsend 1 2 — The vampire bat. A presentation of undescribed habits and review of its history Raymond L. Ditmars & Arthur M. Greenhall 53 3 — A second list of Antillean reptiles and amphibians. Thomas Barbour 77 4 — The reproductive habits of the common catfish, Ameiurus nebulosus (Le Sueur), with a discussion of their significance in ontogeny and phylogeny C. M. Breder, Jr. 143 5 — Sex recognition in the guppy, Lebistes reticulatus Peters. C. M. Breder, Jr. & C. W. Coates 187 6 — The fishes of Union Island, Grenadines, British West Indies, with the description of a new species of star-gazer. William Beebe & Gloria Hollister 209 r 111 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS THE DISTRIBUTION OF CERTAIN WHALES AS SHOWN BY LOGBOOK RECORDS OF AMERICAN WHALESHIPS Fig. 1. Fig. 2. PI. I. PI. II. PI. III. PI. IV. PAGE A Nineteenth Century Whaler, the Bark Morning Star, of New Bedford 2 A chart of ocean currents 6 Distribution of the sperm whale based on logbook records dating from 1761 to 1920. Chart A — April-September, inclusive In pocket Distribution of the sperm whale based on logbook records dating from 1761 to 1920. Chart B — October-March, inclusive In pocket Distribution of the northern and southern right whales based on logbook records dating from 1785 to 1913. Chart C In pocket Distribution of bowhead and humpback whales based on logbook records — mostly Nineteenth Century. Chart D In pocket THE VAMPIRE BAT. A PRESENTATION OF UNDESCRIBED HABITS AND REVIEW OF ITS HISTORY. Fig. 3. PI. V. PI. VI. PI. VII. Head of vampire bat, Desmodus rotundus murinus Wagner 68 Fig. 4. Spear-nosed bat, Phyllostomus hastatus panamensis Allen. Fig. 5. Vampire bat, Desmodus rotundus murinus Wagner, walking. Fig. 6. Vampire bat, Desmodus rotundus murinus Wagner, walking 0pp. 68 Fig. 7. Vampire bat, Desmodus rotundus murinus Wagner, drinking blood. Fig. 8. Vampire bat, Desmodus rotundus murinus Wagner, at completion of meal. Fig. 9. Vampire bat, Desmodus rotundus murinus Wagner. preparing to leap upward for flight 0pp. 70 Fig. 10. Positions assumed by the vampire bat, Desmodus rotundus murinus Wagner, in clinging to an animal with thick pelage. Fig. 11. Another view 0pp. 72 V THE REPRODUCTIVE HABITS OF THE COMMON CATFISH, AMEIURUS NEBULOSUS (LE SUEUR), WITH A DISCUSSION OF THEIR SIGNIFICANCE IN ONTOGENY AND PHYLOGENY. Fig. 12. Ameiurus nebulosus. After a site for the nest is selected, the pair of catfishes spend much time resting quietly side by side with the tails pointing out 180 Fig. 13. As spawning becomes more imminent the fishes become active and circle continually in an agitated fashion. . . 180 Fig. 14. Ameiums nebulosus. Just before spawning, the circle that their two bodies form flattens so that the fish are in con- tact, head to tail I8l Fig. 15. At the moment of egg laying. The accumulating pile of eggs may be seen under the female. Fig. 16. Ameiurus nebulosus. Immediately after spawning the fishes separate slightly and rest 182 Fig. 17. Sometimes a clump of eggs is dislodged and knocked out of the nest. Here the female is feeling them with her barbels 182 Fig. 18. Ameiurus nebulosus. A typical pose of the female on her eggs 183 Fig. 19. The yawning of the brooding fish which is characteristic and may aid in aeration 183 Fig. 20. Ameiurus nebulosus. Both parents incubating at the same time 184 Fig. 21. Both parents “rounding up” the young fish, which may be seen as an oval black spot between them 184 Fig. 22. Opladelus olivaris. Typical posture of an incubating male.. 185 Fig. 23. Opladelus olivaris. Typical posture of an incubating male.. 185 SEX RECOGNITION IN THE GUPPY, LEBISTES RETICULATUS PETERS. Fig. 24. Graphic arrangement of reactions of male Lebistes in a study of sex recognition 194 Fig. 25. Graphic arrangement of conditioning of male Lebistes to females in a beaker floated in their aquaria, and to empty beakers 197 THE FISHES OF UNION ISLAND, GRENADINES, BRITISH WEST INDIES, WITH THE DESCRIPTION OF A NEW SPECIES OF STAR-GAZER. Fig. 26. Panorama of Chatham Bay, Union Island, with the Antares at anchor 210 Fig. 27. Gillellus quadrocinctus 222 VI Kleine Veroffentlichung der Remeis-Sternwarte Nr. 1 Sonderdruck aus dem 29. Bericht d. Nat. Ges. Nr, 2 Sonderdruck aus dem 30, Bericht d. Nat. Ges. Nr. 3 Sonderdruck aus dem 31. Bericht d. Nat. Ges. m . / ZOOLOGICA SCIENTIFIC CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE NEW YORK ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY VOLUME XIX. NUMBER 1 THE DISTRIBUTION OF CERTAIN WHALES AS SHOWN BY LOGBOOK RECORDS OF AMERICAN WHALESHIPS Chasles Haskins Townsend Director of the New York Aquarium PUBLISHED BY THE SOCIETY THE ZOOLOGICAL PARK, NEW YORK April 3, 1935 Jtetu ^ork Hoolostcal i^ocietp General Office: 101 Park Avenue, New York City ([^(ficer5a» President, Madison Grant Honorary President, Henry FAiRPiEiiD Osborn Vice-Presidents, W. Redmond Cross and Kermit Roosevelt Chairman, Executive Committee, Madison Grant Treasurer, Cornelius R. Agnew Secretary, William White Niles* Jlloarb of l^ruj^teesi Clasig of 1936 Madison Grant, William White Niles,* Lewis R. Morris, Archer M. Huntington, George D. Pratt,* Cornelius R. Agnew, Harrison Williams, Marshall Field, Ogden L. Mills, Vincent Astor, C. Suydam Cutting, Childs Frick (ClaiSi of 1937 George Bird Grinnell, Frederic C. Walcott, George C. Clark, W. Redmond Cross, Henry Fairfield Osborn, Jr., George Gordon Battle, Bayard Dominick, Anson W. Hard, Robert Gordon McKay, Kermit Roosevelt, Grafton H. Pyne, John M. Schipf Clasps of 1938 Henry Fairfield Osborn, Robert S. Brewster, Edward S. Harkness, Edwin Thorne, Irving K. Taylor, Harry Payne Bingham, Landon K. Thorne, J. Watson Webb, Oliver D. Filley, De Forest Grant, H. de B. Parsons,* George F. Baker SidentMic W. Reid Blair, Director of the Zoological Park William T. Hornaday, Director Emeritus Charles H. Townsend, Director of the Aquarium C. M. Brbder, Jr., Assistant Director, Aquarium Raymond L. Ditmars, Curator of Mammals and Reptiles William Beebe, Honorary Curator of Birds and Director of Department of Tropical Research Lee S. Crandall, Curator of Birds H. C. Raven, Prosector Charles V. Noback, Veterinarian Claude W. Leister, Ass^t to the Director and Curator, Educational Activities Edward R. Osterndorff, Photographer William Bridges, Editor and Curator of Publications Cbitorial Committee Madison Grant, Chairman W. Reid Blair Charles H. Townsend William Beebe George Bird Grinnell William Bridges * Deceased ZOOLOGICA SCIENTIFIC CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE NEW YORK ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY THE DISTRIBUTION OF CERTAIN WHALES AS SHOWN BY LOGBOOK RECORDS OF AMERICAN WHALESHIPS Charles Haskins Townsend Director of the New York Aquarium PUBLISHED BY THE SOCIETY THE ZOOLOGICAL PARK, NEW YORK April 3, 1935 A Nineteenth Century Whaler, the Bark Morning Star, of New Bedford. A Sperm Whaler of 305 Built in 1853. She Made 10 Voyages Between 1857 and 1912, Taking 1,130 Whales. Photograph by Tripp, New Bedford. Zoological Vol. XIX, No. 1 THE DISTRIBUTION OF CERTAIN WHALES AS SHOWN BY LOGBOOK RECORDS OF AMERICAN WHALESHIPS Bij Charles Haskins Townsend, Sc.D. Director of the New York Aquarium (Figs. 1-2; Plates I-IV incl.) While examining logbooks of old-time whaling vessels in the New Bedford Public Library a few years ago, it became ap- parent to the writer that they represented a supply of hitherto unused records available for much additional information on the distribution of whales.i The logbooks, hundreds in number, show clearly where the Nineteenth Century whaler made his catches of sperm, bowhead, right and humpback whales. It ap- peared that by platting on charts the positions where large num- bers of whales had been taken, much could be learned of their distribution and something of their migrations. Other collections of Nineteenth Century logbooks were found in the Whaling Museum of Old Dartmouth Historical So- ciety in New Bedford and also at Nantucket, Salem, Stonington and other New England ports celebrated in the history of the whaling industry. Many privately-owned logbooks were also ac- cessible.2 The compilation of records found in these logbooks was undertaken on behalf of the New York Zoological Society. Posi- ^ In the present document the writer has included parts of his earlier paner on the same subject, “Where the Nineteenth Century Whaler Made His Catch.” (Bull. N. Y. Zool. Soc., Vol. XXXIV, No. 6, Nov.-Dee., 1931). 2 The collections of logbooks found in the libraries and other institutions of old whaling towns had been acquired both by gift and purchase. Those in the possession of individuals were regarded as family heirlooms. A few logs were found in the collections of individuals interested in the history of American whaling. Little difficulty was encountered in getting permission to copy records from logbooks privately owned. The simple explanation that the records showing where whales had actu- ally been killed were for the making of new charts, was usually sufficient, and the whaler- ancestor’s log would be laid before us. The present generation has apparently not lost interest in that now extinct phase of American life. 3 4 Zoologica: N, Y. Zoological Society [XIX; 1 tions where 53, 8^77 whales were taken are platted by latitude, longitude and month on the four charts presented herewith. Each month’s captures being distinctively colored, the charts present evidence of considerable movement of whales according to sea- son. They also show the positions and extent of “whaling grounds” and the seasons when they were visited. A study of the two sperm whale charts shows that the catch of sperm whales by the Nineteenth Century whaler was made chiefly between the north and south latitudes of 40°. The known distribution of this species both northward and southward is somewhat wider. It is in general an inhabitant of tropical and temperate seas, ranging into cold waters only in very limited numbers. A few stragglers are now being taken in Antarctic waters. The sperm whaler made voyages lasting from two to four years. He sailed all tropical and temperate seas and op- erated at all seasons, being continuously at sea except when driven to port for supplies or repairs. The “whaling grounds” as shown on the four accompanying charts are naturally very widely scattered, whales being found in cold, temperate and tropical seas both north and south. Some species are of limited distribution, while others migrate extensively according to sea- son, breeding range or food supply. We are here dealing with whaling operations as conducted when sailing vessels were employed and whales were killed with harpoons thrown by hand from open boats. The whales taken were the slower species that could be captured by such methods and that did not sink, or seldom sank, when killed. The Nine- teenth Century whaler did not take the great blue whale, the flnback and other kinds now being captured in great numbers by more effective equipment, and his logbooks contain little about them except that they were frequently seen. Such whales were too speedy for his small boats and usually sank when killed — a difficulty he could not surmount. Most of the species he was able to capture are now greatly reduced in numbers as a result of his long-continued activities. The bowhead whale is considered a rarity and does not figure in the annual catch today. Twentieth Century whaling at present involves the killing of many thousands of whalebone whales a year, largely in Ant- 1935] Townsend: Distribution of Certain Whales 5 arctic waters. It is vastly. more destructive, 42,874 whales hav- ing been taken during the season of 1930-31. The catch is made by large steam-powered hunting boats carrying small cannon and whales are towed to a limited number of stations on shore, or to large cruising factory steamers equipped to haul whales on board. Forty factory steamers and a smaller number of shore stations are sufficient for the enormous annual catch of today, whereas the old-time sailing fleet numbered hundreds of ves- sels. In 1846 there were 735 whaling vessels sailing under the flag of the United States. Not one of them remains afloat today. The sole survivor has been hauled ashore and is now a whaling museum. At its best period that great fleet probably captured less than 10,000 whales a year. The plattings on the two sperm whale charts are divided — one for the April-September season, the other for the rest of the year. They show where 36,909 sperm whales were killed. The charts also show a seasonal oscillation of most of the sperm whales between north and south latitudes, or at least to- ward or away from the Equator. The sperm whale is an inhabitant of tropical and temperate seas — a straggler elsewhere. The north Atlantic, for instance, above latitude 35° N. would not be classed as ‘Temperate” during the northern winter season by either navigators or meteorolo- gists. There is much evidence that there is an extensive south- ward movement of sperm whales as the northern winter season comes on. A reverse movement is indicated for the winter sea- son south of the Equator. According to the many thousands of plattings on the charts, the April to September sperm whaling above latitude 25° N. in both Atlantic and Paciflc waters was largely discontinued after that season. Whaling operations in this region of the Atlantic were continued to a limited extent during October and November and to a lesser degree in the north Pacific. While some whaling continued in January and February north of the Equator in both oceans, the most of it was conducted “along the line” or far to the south of it. Our examinations of the records of more than 1,600 voyages indicate that regardless of all but the most adverse weather con- Carte Generale Des Courants Marins, D’Apres Kriimmel Fig. 2. The positions of whaling grounds as affected by ocean currents were discussed at considerable length by Wilkes (1845) and Maury (1855). The present writer, after much study of recent oceanographic literature, abandons his attempt to set forth what is known of their relationship. A chart of ocean current is presented here in the hope that the task may be undertaken by someone more competent. 1935] Townsend: Distribution of Certain Whales 7 ditions, the hardy whalemen of the period visited “whaling grounds” in various latitudes according to season, as experience and whaling traditions had taught them. Where and when to hunt for whales was the vital topic in their conversation. A whaling ground is occupied by whales so long as it is a feeding ground. It continues to be a feeding ground during the season when the animal life on which whales subsist is most abundant. Whalers of today are better informed on this point as a result of modern scientific investigations. The sperm whale feeds chiefiy on cephalopods and at greater depths than other whales. The bulk of the food of whalebone whales consists of small crustaceans and other plankton. Cer- tain of the smaller fishes, when schooling, are taken by some of the whalebone whales. The migrations of whales from one region to another are influenced by the search for food and the needs of reproduction. Some of the whalebone whales, feeding extensively in cold seas, seek temperate waters to bring forth their young. Their sea- sonal movements are also influenced by ocean currents to a de- gree not yet well understood. The seasonal movements of sperm whales in the broad Pacific do not correspond very closely with those of the much narrower Atlantic. The great currents of the two oceans differ in direction and force and there are great climatic differences. The movements of sperm whales in the Indian Ocean are geo- graphically limited at the north. Most of the catch there was made south of the Equator. They were seldom taken north of it except in the Autumn months. , It will be seen that in the north Atlantic (Sperm Whale Chart A) the platted areas above latitude 25° are with a few exceptions for the April-September period. The massed plat- tings in the Sargasso region are almost entirely those pertaining to the summer season of the northern hemisphere. Between north latitude 25° and the Equator, sperm whales were taken chiefly during the October-March season. Along the east coast of South America (Sperm Whale Chart B) the catches were largely made during the same season, or summer-time in the southern hemisphere. Along latitude 35° S., toward the Cape 8 Zoologica: N, Y. Zoological Society [XIX; 1 of Good Hope, whaling data are also for the October-March season. Off Japan and along latitude 30° N., the plattings are those of the April-September season. In the Pacific equatorial belt, catches for all months of the year are represented. Off the west coast of South America south of the Equator, the plattings per- tain mostly to the summer season of the southern hemisphere. There was much whaling off Peru at this season. Off the west coast of South Africa, the extensive whaling during all months of the year probably may be attributed to the effect of the cool, northward-flowing Benguela Current. The massed areas off the west coast of northern South America, where whaling was also carried on at all seasons, may be similarly explained by the cool northward-flowing Humboldt Current. This current, deflected westward at the Equator, is responsible for the uniformly cool sea temperatures about the Galapagos Archipelago, where large num;bers of sperm whales were taken during more than half a century at all seasons of the year. NORTHERN RIGHT WHALE {Balaena sieboldii) . CHART C. In the Pacific, the area of distribution of the northern right whale lies almost entirely to the northward of 40° N. latitude. It narrowly overlaps sperm whale territory in the Sea of Japan. Other points of contact are negligible. Whaling for this species, off the Asiatic coast, extended from the Sea of Japan into the head of Okhotsk Sea, and along the east side of the Kamchatka peninsula, with considerable offshore hunting to the eastward of the Kurile Islands as far as longitude 170° East. On the American side, right whaling was practised from southeastern Bering Sea to and throughout the Gulf of Alaska. Other right whale plattings in Bering Sea are few and do not extend above Bering Strait. There are only a few scattered off- shore positions just below latitude 40° North. Practically all north Pacific right whaling was carried on during the summer season of the northern hemisphere. According to the logbook records at hand, 2,118 right whales were taken in the regions above described. 1935] Townsend: Distribution of Certain Whales 9 SOUTHERN RIGHT WHALE {Balaena australis) CHART C. Comparison of the right whale chart with the two sperm whale charts shows that the narrow belt of distribution of the southern right whale in the Atlantic overlaps the very broad sperm whale belt only as far north as 30° south latitude, except for two small areas oif South Africa. Its southern border of dis- tribution extends, at a few points only, beyond that of the sperm whale. In the Pacific Ocean, the chart devoted to positions where northern and southern right whales were taken, shows no plat- tings between latitudes 30° N. and 30° S. except for a few stragglers. The same may be said of the Atlantic, except for a restricted area adjacent to Woolwich Bay, South Africa, and eight mid-ocean stragglers. In the Indian Ocean, right whales were not taken north of 30° South latitude, except at Delagoa Bay about 25° South. Therefore, so far as right whales are concerned, the limits described above (within 30° N. and 30° S.) represent a vacant tropical belt. There are no records in ‘the logs of the 1,670 voyages examined, to indicate any mingling of northern and southern right whales. In the south Pacific, right whaling was carried on between latitudes 30° and 53° South. An area of intensive right whaling lay to the eastward of northern New Zealand, its center being in latitude 35° South and longitude 172° East. To the south- ward of this area there was a rather wide belt of right whaling ground extending from southeastern New Zealand to about 142° west longitude. Below latitude 30° South there are, with few exceptions, no records showing the capture of whales of any species in the South Pacific between 140° West longitude and the sperm and right-whaling ground known as “Coast of Chile.” The name “Middle Ground,” as used by whalers, seems to apply to all of the area between New Zealand and eastern Australia, where both right and sperm whales were taken, the latter pre- dominating. “Coast of New Holland” is a logbook term applied to all right and sperm whaling areas west and south of Australia. In the south Atlantic, the right whale was taken along nearly the same lines of latitude as in the Pacific, with an addi- 10 Zooldgica: N, Y, Zoological Society [XIX; 1 tional coastwise strip extending as far as Cape Horn, including the Falkland Islands. Numerous captures of right whales were made in the vicinity of Woolwich Bay, Africa, between latitudes 20° and 24° South. In the Indian Ocean, right whales were taken within the same latitudinal limits as in the Atlantic and Pacific, but not north of Delagoa Bay or south of the “Desolation Ground'’ around Kerguelen Island. Thus the distribution of the southern right whale extends — within the above latitudes — from the meridian of 100° East, practically around the world, with a break only between longitudes 90° and 140° West. The chart shows where 6,262 southern right whales were taken. As for the North Atlantic Right Whale {Euhalaena glaci- alis) and the Bowhead (Balaena mysticetus) in the Atlantic Arctic, the chart remains a blank. Only a few of the 1,670 whal- ing voyages considered here, extended above the sperm whale limit in the north Atlantic. Their records for bowhead and right whale are so few that they add nothing to what is already known of the distribution of these two species in this region. The posi- tions recorded for bowhead were all in the vicinity of Southamp- ton Island, Hudson Bay, and in Cumberland Sound, Baffin Island. These localities are lettered BOWHEAD on Chart C. The records are chiefly those of New Bedford and New London whalers. The bowhead fishery, beginning about 1860, was an important one. Were the records of British whaleships available for platting on charts, they would doubtless supply the informa- tion lacking. Of the 53,879 positions on the charts showing where whales were taken, 36,910 relate to the sperm whale, which was the chief object of capture of American whalemen during the period covered by our records. While the few records for right whale and bowhead in the north Atlantic have been omitted from the chart, they have been included in the general tabulation of voy- ages and catches. Similarly, while the few records showing where gray whales were taken, were not platted on charts, they have been included in the tabulation of voyages. In the section of this document devoted to records of cap- tures, the list of whaleships is arranged alphabetically. The catch for each voyage is recorded by species. This yields infor- 1935] Totvnsend: Distribution of Certain Whales 11 mation, hitherto lacking, on the average catch per voyage dur- ing the Nineteenth Century. BOWHEAD WHALE (Balaena mysticetus) , CHART D. The whaling grounds for the bowhead in Bering Sea and adjacent waters, as indicated by the 5,114 plattings on chart D, are included within latitudes 53° to 73° North, and longitude 120° West to 135° East. In the Arctic, they extended from Wrangel Island, Siberia, to Point Barrow, Alaska, with a scattered dis- tribution as far eastward as Amundsen Gulf, British America. In Arctic waters the catch was made chiefly during the months of August and September. In Bering Sea — mostly its western part — whaling continued from April to July, while in the Ok- hotsk Sea it was carried on throughout the northern summer season, but largely in August and September. Scammon (1872) states that ''no bowheads of the Okhotsk Sea have ever been seen passing out of the passages of the Kurile Islands, or from the Okhotsk to Bering Sea, or Arctic whales passing to the Okhotsk.” It should be noted, however, that in these latitudes, whaling, both for the bowhead and the northern right whale, was carried on during the summer season. The whalers were not there in winter when ice conditions, both in the Bering and Okhotsk seas, should have forced the bowhead somewhat farther south. Although the logbook records at hand — covering a period of more than half a century of summer whal- ing— show no winter whaling, it is probable that the bowhead passed freely around the end of the peninsula of Kamchatka during the winter season. HUMPBACK (Megaptera nodosa) . CHART D. It is of interest to note that the 2,883 humpbacks taken by the ships whose records are at hand were captured chiefly in five principal regions where sperm whales were taken in great numbers. These are the west coast of Africa (Equator to 12° S.), coasts of Colombia and Ecuador, around the Tonga Islands, in the Coral Sea northwest of New Caledonia and off northwest Australia. All of these areas are south of the Equator except in 12 Zoologica: N, Y. Zoological Society [XIX; 1 the case of those taken between the Equator and Panama Bay. Elsewhere the records of catches of humpbacks are few and widely scattered, except off Lower California, the West Indies and around Madagascar. WHALING GROUNDS— NORTH ATLANTIC There is frequent mention in the logs of sperm whaling “grounds,” nine of which were in the North Atlantic. “Western Ground” (31° N. 50° W.) is in the great mid-ocean Sargasso region, its center being in the latitude of Bermuda, and nearer Bermuda than Madeira. Whaling was carried on here almost entirely during the season from April to September, inclusive. Extending northeastward, it nearly merges with the Western Islands Ground around the Azores. Parts of the Western Ground were known to some whalemen as “The Two Forties” and “The Two Thirty-sixes.” “Southern Ground” (33°-40° N. 60°-75° W.) northwest of Bermuda, and “Charleston Ground” (28° -33° N. 67° -78° W.) southeast of Cape Hatteras, were, like the West- ern Ground, influenced by the Gulf Stream. Another name, “Hat- teras Ground,” was sometimes applied to the region off the Cape. In the “Southern Ground” whaling was seldom practised later than September, while on the “Charleston Ground” it often con- tinued until January. The southwesterly part of this area was sometimes called “The Bahamas.” The “Commodore Morris Ground” (47°-51° N. 20°-25° W.), farthest north of the sperm whaling areas, and the southwest of the British Isles, was a summer field. Its moderate sea tem- perature was influenced by the North Atlantic Drift of the Gulf Stream. There are but few records of sperrn whaling by Amer- ican vessels on the Newfoundland Banks, an area usually re- ferred to as “The Shoals.” Sea temperatures here are lower than elsewhere in the same latitude because of the southward flowing Labrador Current. These grounds were fished mainly toward the end of the Eighteenth Century. The name “Steen Ground” was occasionally applied to whal- ing carried on in summer west of Madeira. Between the Canary Islands and the coast of Africa, considerable whaling was done 1935] Townsend: Distribution of Certain Whales 13 in autumn. The whaling area about Cape Verde islands was known as the “San Antonio Ground/' but sometimes called “The Twenty-Twenties.” The name “Cornell Ground” (4° N. 22° W.) was applied to a winter sperm whaling area near the Equator, between the coast of Africa and the mid-ocean island of St. Paul. A mid-ocean whaling ground known as “The Twelve-Forty” (12° N. 40° W.), between the West Indies and Cape Verde islands, was visited from February to May, inclusive. This area is frequently mentioned in the logs. Sperm whaling in the Gulf of Mexico and West Indies re- gions was practised to a very limited extent during the season from February to May only. WHALING GROUNDS— SOUTH ATLANTIC There was an important sperm whaling ground in the west- ern south Atlantic called “Coast of Brazil” (unfortunately not lettered on our charts) . It extended from the Equator to Uru- guay and was occupied from October to March, with a little whaling during April. South of it, off the mouth of the La Plata River, was the “Platte Ground” where sperm whales were taken. To the south- ward and near this ground were the so-called “Brazil Banks,” chiefly a right whale area. “False Banks” lay to the eastward of Brazil Banks. No name appears for the sperm whaling ground between the latter and the Falkland Islands. The Atlantic sperm whaling ground off the African coast from 3° to 23° S. was called “Coast of Africa,” where hunting was done at all seasons.^ Our records show comparatively little whaling about St. Helena. “Pigeon Ground” (31°-39° S. 16°-28° W.) was chiefly a right whaling area. On “Tristan Ground” (Chart C) around Tristan da Cunha, both sperm and right whales were taken. From here, eastward to the Cape of Good Hope, there was long-continued hunting for both sperm and right whales, the latter greatly predominating in the catch. The whaling season for this south Atlantic region was chiefly ®The plattin"s of thip area were extended a little too far to the west and numerous records were omitted for lack of space. 14 Zoologica: N, Y. Zoological Society [XIX; 1 during the months from October to January inclusive. At the “Woolwich Bay Ground'' (20"^ -24° S.), sperm and right whales were taken from December to March inclusive. WHALING GROUNDS— PACIFIC Japan Ground (28°-35° N. 150°-179° E.), discovered about 1820, was a summer ground and fished to a limited extent in autumn. The “Coast of Japan" ground (34°-40° N. 142°-149° E.), east of northern Japan, afforded sperm whaling from May to July inclusive. During the same months and in about the same latitude there was much hunting for right whales to the west- ward in the Inland Sea of Japan. (See Chart C.) The “Northwest Coast," mostly above 49° N. and extending from 130° to 170° W. (Chart C), was a right whaling ground from April to July inclusive. Our records do not show that sperm whales were taken there except as stragglers. Southeast of southern Japan there was a sperm whaling area about the Bonin Islands, where considerable hunting was done from May to August. North of the Hawaiian Islands sperm whaling was con- tinued to a limited extent until January. This is also true of the region of Lower California down to the latitude of Central Mex- ico. On the grounds known as “Panama," “Galapagos," “Off Shore," “On the Line" and almost across the equatorial Pacific, sperm whales were taken in great numbers during all seasons of the year. The same is true of the grounds known as “Sulu Sea," “Celebes Sea," “Molucca Passage" and “Coast of New Holland" (western and southwestern Australia). On “Middle Ground," between Australia and New Zealand, sperm whaling was done chiefly during the season from December to March in- clusive. Whaling on the “Vasquez" and “French Rock" grounds, north of New Zealand, was continued from December to May inclusive. Sperm whalers operated on the “Callao Ground" off Peru and on the “Coast of Chile Ground" from December to March, but there was some hunting during other months. On all of the Pacific whaling grounds below latitude 30° S., the whalers took both sperm and right whales in about equal numbers, pursuing the latter in January as far as 50° S. The 1935] Townsend: Distribution of Certain Whales 15 hunting of whales was by no means limited to grounds supposed to be most favorable, as both sperm and southern right whales were frequently taken at points remote from them. INDIAN OCEAN Sperm whaling in the Indian Ocean was practiced at all sea- sons, extending from 18° N. to about 40° S., with occasional voyages as far south as Crozet and Kerguelen islands. The prin- cipal grounds were known as “Coast of Arabia,’' “Zanzibar,” “Mahe Banks” and “Delagoa Bay.” There was also sperm whal- ing in Mozambique Channel, east of Madagascar, south of Ceylon and from the Andaman Islands to Sumatra. Most of the sperm whaling in the Indian Ocean, however, was in its western half. Right whales as well as sperm whales were taken in the Indian Ocean between 30° and 40° S., the former greatly predominat- ing. There was also much hunting of right whales on “Crozet” and “Kerguelen” (or “Desolation”) grounds (42°-50° S.). As the work of platting the positions where whales were killed proceeded, the areas called whaling grounds steadily ex- panded. Had the search for logbook records been continued far beyond the total of 1,665 voyages considered here, it is probable that in some regions the local “grounds” would have practically merged. The positions of captures fell so thickly upon the fa- vorite grounds that they could not all be platted. Consequently from 10 to 20 per cent, of the available records were omitted from each densely platted area of the charts. None of the whales in the records were caught by “modern methods,” strictly speaking. The New Bedford tradition, into the Twentieth Century, was against anything like the Norwegian methods or those now used at shore stations. Some shoulder guns for shooting harpoons were tried out by the New Bedford whale- men in the 1850s and 1860s, but did not gain much popularity. The swivel gun, mounted on the bow of the oared whaleboat, was used occasionally, but that was in the earlier days of American whaling, rather than in the more recent. The only improvements that originated early and remained permanent fixtures were the bomb-lance shoulder gun (which came in around 1850) and the darting-gun (combination hand- 16 Zoologica: N, Y, Zoological Society [XIX; 1 thrown harpoon with bomb attached, which came in in the 1870s). The introduction of these devices was not strictly revo- lutionary, as some ship-owners were too conservative to supply them. Even ships which had them would use them only for the larger whales, particularly the bowheads. Even in recent times the darting-gun was not used on small whales. There are occasional records in the logbooks of exceptionally large catches, such as the Bark Bertha, 1905-1907, 138 whales, 3,100 bbl. sperm; Bark Greyhound, 1903-1906, 155 whales, 4,625 bbl. sperm. These would show that the average sperm whale taken by the Bertha yielded 22^2 barrels of oil, and by the Greyhound, 30 barrels. The figures showing the numbers of whales include not only the whales turned into oil, but also those killed and brought alongside but subsequently lost. At times a whale would be shared with another vessel. This would tend to increase the average number of barrels, if taken into consideration. Acknowledgments: The work of compiling records from logbooks of whaleships was begun by the author and later en- trusted to Mr. Arthur C. Watson, formerly connected with the Whaling Museum of New Bedford, and now with the Massa- chusetts Institute of Technology. While the great mass of the records should be credited to the energy of Mr. Watson, many were copied by the writer from logbooks found in New York and Washington. The work of platting on charts the positions where whales were taken was done by Mr. R. W. Richmond of New York, a draughtsman, under the direction of the writer. The tabulation showing names of vessels and catch of whales was arranged alphabetically by Mrs. Eleanor Roddan of the Aquarium staff. Following are lists of institutions and individuals whose log- books were kindly made available for examination. 1935] Townsend: Distribution of Certain Whales 17 LIST OF INSTITUTIONS WHOSE LOGBOOKS HAVE BEEN EXAMINED Congressional Library, Washington, D. C. D. A. R., Edgartown, Mass. Dukes County Historical Society, Edgartown, Mass. ' Essex Institute, Salem, Mass. Harvard Business School, Boston, Mass. Mariners Savings Bank, New London, Conn. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cam- bridge, Mass. Nantucket Historical Society, Nantucket, Mass. New London County Historical Society, New London, Conn. Old Dartmouth Historical Society, New Bed- ford, Mass. Peabody Museum, Salem, Mass. Public Library, Easthampton, L. I. Public Library, New Bedford, Mass. Public Library, New London, Conn. Public Library, Westerly, R. I. Provincetown Historical Society, Province- town, Mass. Rhode Island Historical Society, Providence, R. I. Stonington Historical Society, Stonington, Conn. The Atheneum, Nantucket, Mass. The Oldest House, Nantucket, Mass. U. S. National Museum, Washington, D. C. Vineyard Haven Historical Society, Vineyard Haven, Mass. Whalemen’s Club, New Bedford, Mass. Widener Library at Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. LIST OF INDIVIDUALS WHOSE LOGBOOKS HAVE BEEN EXAMINED Mr. Charles Baker, New Bedford, Mass. Mrs. Joshua Baker, South Dartmouth, Mass. Mr. Everett Barns, Westerly, R. I. Mr. W. W. Bennett, New Bedford, Mass. Captain H. H. Bodfish, Vineyard Haven, Mass. Mr. Edward S. Brown, New Bedford, Mass. Miss Elizabeth Cannon, Vineyard Haven, Mass. Mr. G. L. Carlisle, Jr., Norfolk, Conn. Mr. James E. Chadwick, Edgartown, Mass. Mrs. W. O. Clark, New Bedford, Mass. Mr. Orville Coffin, Nantucket, Mass. Captain Geo. Comer. East Haddam, Conn. Dr. Charles E. Congdon, Nantucket, Mass. Mrs. Benjamin Cromwell, Vineyard Haven, Mass. Mr, M. J. Curran, New Bedford, Mass. Mrs. R. W. deForest, Cold Spring Harbor, L. I. Mr. Austin Dunham, Provincetown, Mass. Mr. Charles Q. Eldredge, Old Mystic, Conn. Mrs. Tappan Fairchild, Cold Spring Harbor, L. I. Colonel E. H. R. Green, Sputh Dartmouth, Mass. Mrs. M. H. Green, Southampton, L. I. Mr. Wm. D. Halsey, Bridgehampton, L. I. Mrs. James Hammoi^d, Mattapoisett, Mass. Mr. Francis R. Hart, Boston, Mass. Mr. J. A, Herrick, Southampton, L. I. Mr. Chester Howland, New Bedford, Mass. Mr. Lawrence W. Jenkins, Salem, Mass. Mrs. Charles Jones, New Bedford, Mass. Miss Sylvia Knowles, New Bedford, Mass. Mr. G. Kranzler, New Bedford, Mass. Mr. R. M. Kuechler, New Bedford, Mass. Mr. H. G. Leavitt, Lynn, Mass. Mrs. Julius Mallory, Mystic, Conn. Miss Catherine W. Mason, Stonington. Conn. Mr. Paul C. Nicholson, Providence, R. I. Mr. Frank Norton, Edgartown, Mass. Miss Lucretia Norton, Edgartown Mass. Mr. Francis Olejink, Sag Harbor, L. I. Mrs. E. I. Omey, New Bedford, Mass. Miss Christine Pease, Edgartown, Mass. Misses Clara and Alice Perkins, Riverhead, L. I. Mr. William C. Philips, New Bedford, Mass. Miss Carrie Potter, N, Dartmouth, Mass. Mr. William H. Potter New Bedford, Mass. Mr. Fred Riesdorph, Riverhead, L. I. Mr. Harold L. Rogers, Watermill, L. I. Miss Mary H. Rogers, Southampton, L. I. Misses Mary and Helen Seabury, New Bed- ford, Mass. Mr. Marshall Shepard, Edgartown, Mass. Mr. Arthur B. Sherman, New Bedford, Mass. Mr. Wilbur Sherman, New Bedford, Mass. Ship Model House, Provincetown, Mass. Captain William I. Shockley, New Bedford, Mass. Mr. Austin Strong, Nantucket, Mass. Mr. Frank Swift, Jr., New Bedford, Mass. Mr. Frederick H. Taber, New Bedford, Mass. Mr. Charles H. Taylor, Boston, Mass. Mr. W. H. Tripp, New Bedford, Mass. Mr. F. C. Turner, New York, N. Y. Mr. Alexander Vietor, Edgartown, Mass. Dr. James Weeks, Stonington, Conn. Mrs. Johnson Whiting, West Tisbury, Mass. Dr. Charles Mallory Williams, Stonington, Conn. Mr. William Williams New York, N. Y. Mr. Herbert Wing, South Dartmouth, Mass. 18 Zoologica: N. Y, Zoological Society [XIX; 1 SUMMARY OF LOGBOOK RECORDS PERTAINING TO CATCH OF WHALES Number of Vessels 744 Number of Voyages 1,665 WHALES TAKEN Sperm 36,908 Bowhead 5,114 Northern Right Whale, Pacific Ocean 2,118 Southern Right Whale, Pacific Ocean 1,685 Northern Right Whale, Atlantic Ocean 35 Southern Right Whale, Atlantic Ocean 2,981 Southern Right Whale, Indian Ocean 1,596 Humpback 2,883 California Gray 557 Total Number of Whales 53,877 1935] Townsend: Distribution of Certain Whales 19 LOGBOOKS OF NINETEENTH CENTURY WHALESHIPS FROM WHICH RECORDS WERE OBTAINED Vessel Voyages Sperm Bow- head No. Rt. (Pac So. Rt. ific) . No. Rt. (Atla So. Rt. ntic) South. Right (Indian) Hump- back Calif. Gray Total Per Vessel A. Houghton, bk 1876-1877 4 4 A. E. Why land, schr . . . 1915 17 17 A. J. Ross, br 1877 4 4 u 1878 i 1 A. R. Tucker, bk 1853-1857 28 28 « 1858-1860 37 37 a 18.61-1863 31 31 u 1864-1865 14 11 25 u 1866-1868 19 3 22 a 1869-1870 6 6 12 u 1871-1874 33 33 u 1875-1876 30 30 u 1877-1879 39 39 u 1880-1883 18 1 1 '6 28 a 1887-1890 60 8 68 a 1891-1892 1 6 7 a 1894 5 5 a 1895-1896 i 1 2 a 1898 2 2 a 1899-1901 66 66 a 1901-1903 64 64 a 1903-1906 86 86 A. T. Gifford, schr 1910 5 5 Abbie Bradford, schr. . . 1878-1879 6 6 u 1880-1881 2 2 u 1883 2 2 u 1883 4 4 u 1887 1 1 Abbott Lawrence, br. . . 1880 1 1 Abigail, ship 1832-1835 69 69 a 1836-1838 83 83 u 1844-1847 49 2 51 a 1856-1859 9 '7 27 43 Abraham Barker, bk . . . 1866-1870 55 2 57 u 1871-1875 53 142 195 Abraham Barker, ship . 1846-1847 6 1 4 11 U 1850-1852 4 23 1 28 U 1855-1857 3 1 1 5 a 1857-1860 9 2 11 '7 1 30 Active, bk 1856-1860 62 ’2 64 Acushnet, ship 1845-1847 20 3 5 28 Addison, bk 1867-1868 12 12 Addison, ship 1870-1873 21 *i 29 51 Adeline, ship 1850-1851 1 5 6 a 1857-1859 2 13 3 1 19 a 1860-1865 4 19 "i 2 36 62 u 1865-1869 11 7 6 1 25 1869-1874 25 i 'i ’5 15 47 20 Zoologica: N, Y. Zoological Society [XIX; 1 Vessel Voyages Sperm Bow- head No. Rt. (Pac So. Rt. ific) No. Rt. (Atla So. Rt. ntic) South. Right (Indian) Hump- back Calif. Gray Total Per Vessel Adeline Gibbs, hk 1845-1846 2 12 14 U 1866-1869 84 io 94 U 1871-1874 33 4 37 u 1875-1877 34 42 76 Adeline Gibbs, ship, . . . 1841 2 2 Admiral Blake, schr. , . . 1860 5 5 a 1861 3 3 u 1862 1 1 iC 1863 3 3 a 1869-1870 5 16 21 Afton, hk 1856-1858 32 32 Alaska, hk 1868-1869 23 23 u 1885-1889 30 's is 'l 52 Alatahama, hr 1861 6 6 Albion, ship 1829-1830 25 25 U 1831 35 35 U 1832 25 25 U 1833 3 3 a 1854-1856 3 '3 18 24 Alert, ship 1852-1853 3 1 4 Alexander, hr Alexander, ship 1887 i 1 1839-1842 73 73 Alexander, stmr 1897 ’9 9 u 1899 8 8 u 1900 9 9 u 1901 2 2 u 1902 17 17 (( 1903 7 7 Alexander Barclay, ship Alexander Mansfield, 1838 ’l 1 ship 1832-1833 2 20 22 Alfred Tyler, hk 1845-1848 32 '4 36 Alice Knowles, hk 1898 21 21 a 1908-1910 52 15 67 u 1910-1913 115 115 Alice Mandell, ship .... 1852 1 i6 17 Almira, hk 1869-1870 4 1 5 Almira, ship 1837 ’4 4 u 1858-1861 29 i ’5 35 a 1864-1866 6 *6 1 2 9 ’4 28 (( 1867 2 1 1 4 Alpha .ship 1846-1849 24 4 28 « 1856-1859 20 20 a 1860-1864 26 26 Amanda, hk 1831 19 19 Amanda, ship. 1830 ’4 16 20 Amazon, hk 1857-1859 3 is i 2 19 Amazon, ship . . . 1849-1851 22 22 America, ship 1844-1845 3 is 16 America II, ship 1850-1851 2 '3 5 Amy M. Sacker, schr,. . 1886 8 8 Andrew Hicks, hk 1890 5 ’2 7 U 1904-1905 8 2 10 1935] Townsend: Distribution of Certain Whales 21 Vessel Voyages Sperm Bow- head No. Rt. (Pac So. Rt. ific) No. Rt. (Atla So. Rt. ntic) South. Right (Indian) Hump- back Calif. Gray Total Per Vessel Andrew Hicks, bk 1906 18 18 u 1907-1908 15 6 21 a 1908-1910 77 • a is 95 u 1911-1913 92 6 98 Andrews, bk 1865-1866 io 10 Ann, ship 1792 60 ’2 62 Ann Alexander, ship... . 1842-1845 45 45 1845-1849 47 47 Ann Maria, br 1838 4 4 Ann Maria, ship 1835-1836 3 "i 36 40 a 1837-1838 4 14 22 40 Ann Parry, bk 1842-1845 45 45 Annawan, bk 1860-1862 15 *2 17 U 1868-1870 20 20 Annawan, br 1856-1857 18 *i 19 1858-1859 18 18 Annawan 11, br 1854-1855 9 9 Ansel Gibbs, bk ...... . 1864 is 18 U 1867-1868 7 7 a 1868-1869 8 ’2 10 u 1869 8 8 u 1872 1 *8 9 Ansel Gibbs, ship. ..... 1840-1842 66 66 » 1860-1861 '5 5 Antarctic, schr 1891-1892 48 48 Antelope, bk . . .c 1856-1858 11 ’2 13 u 1864-1865 17 17 Antilk; br . 1858 2 i i 4 Arab, ship 1842-1845 95 ’2 ii 108 U 1852 14 14 Arabella, ship 1830-1833 85 85 (( 1833-1837 72 ‘i 73 u 1837-1839 6 3 '8 17 u 1850-1851 8 ‘3 11 Archer, ship 1856-1860 29 29 Argus of London, ship.. 1832-1834 152 152 1835-1836 23 23 Arnolda, bk 1867-1870 39 39 Arnolda, ship 1860-1863 33 33 u 1864-1866 i4 15 Asia, ship 1792-1793 '9 is *8 35 Atkins Adams, bk 1859-1861 13 13 Atlantic, bk 1851-1854 34 i 35 u 1866-1868 31 3 i9 53 u 1868-1871 39 1 5 45 u 1876-1879 26 4 11 41 u 1881 ’7 7 Atlas, ship 1813 ’3 3 U 1825-1826 1 2i 22 U 1826-1827 7 15 22 Atlas of Lynn, ship .... 1830 2 19 21 Attleboro, bk 1881-1882 19 i9 38 Aurora, bk 1866-1870 16 44 1 61 22 Zoologica: N, Y, Zoological Society [XIX; 1 Vessel Voyages Sperm Bow- head No. Rt. (Pac So. Rt. ific) No. Rt. (Atla So. Rt. ntic) South. Eight (Indian) Hump- back CaUf. Gray Total Per Vessel Aurora, schr 1882-1884 16 16 ' 1884-1885 23 ’3 26 ■ Aurora, ship 1820 6 6 U 1845-1848 55 55 , Autumn, hk 1846-1847 20 20 1 Avola, hk 1867-1870 43 43 , Awashonks, hk 1849-1850 9 i5 ’8 32 i U 1852-1854 9 17 26 a 1860-1861 3 1 4 :! u 1862-1865 17 4 21 i u 1866-1870 10 30 '2 '3 45 : Balaena, ship 1841-1845 45 2 47 ; Balance, ship 1834-1836 32 32 i Baltic, ship 1828-1830 87 87 ii Barclay of Westport, hk. 1853-1854 19 19 J Barclay, ship 1834-1857 40 40 1 a 1848-1851 54 54 u 1852-1854 12 ’5 17 u 1854-1857 10 11 ’2 23 Barth’m’w Gosnold, hk . 1876 9 9 U 1876-1880 45 ’5 i7 67 a 1881-1883 30 30 Barth’m V Gosnold, ship 1865 2 2 U 1866-1870 45 45 Beaver, ship 1840-1841 10 12 '4 26 Bedford, ship 1797 i .1 Belle hk 1857-1861 36 i 37 Belle Isle, schr 1849 6 6 Beluga, stmr 1897-1899 63 63 U 1900-1901 13 13 U 1902 4 4 U 1903 • 3 3 Belvedere, stmr 1885 7 7 U 1890 i 9 10 U 1897-1898 5 5 Benezet, hk 1834-1835 45 45 Bengal, ship 1832-1834 44 44 u 1838-1840 7 25 32 Benj . Cummings, hk... . 1855-1859 58 58 u 1866-1870 26 26 i i 54 Benjamin Franklin, hk. 1863-1865 21 21 Benjamin Rush, ship. . . 1833-1835 63 - 63 U 1842-1844 30 ‘6 36 Benjamin Tucker, ship. 1851-1855 8 24 32 u 1858-1859 2 i 3 u 1859-1860 13 *i '2 16 u 1861-1862 15 15 Bertha, hk 1887-1890 66 i 67 a 1892-1894 38 ’4 42 u 1901-1904 81 81 (( 1905-1907 138 138 u 1907-1909 102 102 1935] Townsend: Distribution of Certain Whales 23 Vessel Voyages Sperm Bow- head No. Rt. (Pac So. Rt. ific) No. Rt. (Atla So. Rt. ntic) South. Right (Indian) Hump- back Calif. Gray Total Per Vessel Bertha, bk 1911 35 35 B. D. Nickerson, schr . . 1906-1908 112 112 a 1909-1911 100 100 Betsey, sloop 1761 5 5 Betsey Williams, ship . . 1849-1851 5 i6 i ■3 ’3 28 Bevis, hk 1851-1853 46 46 1856-1857 6 '4 10 Black Eagle, hk 1862-1863 2i 21 a 1864-1865 16 16 a 1866 i 4 5 Blackstone, hk 1843-1844 3 is ’2 6 24 Blackstone, ship 1833-1834 6 ‘9 15 a 1835-1836 1 20 21 u 1837-1838 4 14 is 31 Bogota, hr 1840-1842 22 22 U 1842-1843 10 10 Bohio, bk 1868-1871 19 ’9 28 Bourbon, ship 1823-1824 22 22 Braganza, ship 1841-1842 ie 28 1 45 Brandt, ship 1838-1839 6 9 *5 20 U 1850-1852 43 43 Brewster, hk 1863-1865 66 66 Brighton, ship 1848-1849 2 15 17 Bruce, hk 1848-1850 36 36 Brunswick, ship ....... 1859-1861 19 *2 21 U 1862-1865 4 li ie 31 By Chance, hr 1825-1826 9 9 « 1826-1827 5 i 6 C. W. Morgan, bk 1856 11 11 U 1867-1870 27 ’5 ‘6 38 U 1871 3 3 u 1881-1886 8 13 1 22 a 1893-1895 80 ‘7 87 u 1897 4 1 5 a 1900-1901 37 4 41 a 1902-1903 58 58 a 1904 46 '2 48 a 1906-1908 25 *8 33 u 1908-1910 52 i 10 63 u 1911-1913 122 1 123 C. W. Morgan, ship 1845-1848 53 53 a 1864-1866 1 13 '3 '5 22 Cabinet, ship 1843-1844 1 i8 io 29 u 1852-1853 14 73 2 89 Caledonia, ship 1837-1838 4 27 31 a 1839-1840 25 26 51 a 1846-1848 11 15 8 34 California, hk 1899 38 3 41 California, ship 1854-1858 7 32 3 1 43 a 1862-1865 1 18 ’2 i8 39 u 1866-1869 7 21 2 1 31 1870 3 13 '3 19 24 Zoologica: N. Y, Zoological Society [XIX; 1 Vessel Voyages Sperm Bow- head No. Rt. (Pac So. Rt. ific) No. Rt. (Atla So. Rt. ntic) South. Right (Indian) Hmnp- back Calif. Gray Total Per Vessel Ca lifbrnia, shijp 1872-1876 45 45 u 1881-1885 36 25 i2 73 u 1886-1889 41 9 ’3 53 Callao, hk 1858-1862 10 ’2 12 u 1863-1865 14 10 ’3 27 a 1865-1870 29 1 3 33 u 1876-1878 37 37 Callao, ship 1843-1845 27 17 44 u 1856-1857 5 ‘9 8 ’2 24 Cambria, ship 1839-1842 74 74 Cameo, schr 1921 .39 39 Camilla, bk 1863-1871 7 43 *2 52 u 1867-1871 57 57 Canada, ship 1846-1848 20 ’8 17 ii 56 Canton, bk 1875-1878 31 31 U 1878-1882 64 64 u 1895 1 i 2 u 1897-1898 12 '3 '6 21 a 1899-1900 98 i 99 u 1901-1902 52 52 u 1903-1904 98 98 u 1905-1906 93 ’2 95 u 1907»1909 90 1 '9 100 Canton, ship. ......... 1794 15 15 u 1828 8 8 u 1845-1847 '4 i3 1 1 ‘9 28 u 1848-1850 12 1 10 23 u 1855-1858 24 3 27 u 1859-1862 95 95 u 1863-1866 60 1 61 Canton Packet, bk 1846-1849 42 i 43 li 1850-1853 7 ie 23 a 1857-1861 46 46 Cape Horn Pigeon, bk. . 1880-1883 11 74 85 u 1897 23 i 24 Carleton Bell, schr 1915-1916 46 46 Caroline, ship 1846-1848 15 is ’2 ’2 32 Catawba, ship 1848-1852 37 37 « 1853-1857 63 ’5 68 Catherwood, br 1846-1847 10 1 11 Cavalia, bk 1846-1847 1 i2 1 14 Ceres, ship 1832-1833 12 32 '3 47 « 1846-1848 6 12 18 Champion, ship 1834-1837 73 73 u 1844-1845 2 i is 16 a 1847-1849 15 ii 15 41 u 1851-1852 1 11 12 u 1853-1855 11 30 i 42 u 1856-1857 1 19 20 Champion of Edgar- town, ship 1849-1850 4 12 9 25 Charles, ship 1838-1840 58 58 1841-1844 60 60 1935] Townsend: Distribution of Certain Whales 25 Vessel Voyages Sperm Bow- head No. Rt. (Pac So. Rt. ific) No. Rt. (Atla So, Rt. ntic) South. Right (Indian) Hump- back Calif. Gray Total Per Vessel Charles, ship 1845-1848 35 35 Charles Carroll, ship. . . 1836-1839 87 87 Charles Colgate, schr. . . 1864 ’2 2 U 1866 1 1 U 1868 2 2 Charles Drew, ship .... 1837 15 15 u 1839-1841 61 61 Charles & Edward, bk. . 1858-1860 5 5 Charles Frederick, ship . 1847 5 5 Charles H. Cook, schr.. . 1867 6 6 1868 1 1 Chas. H. Hodgdon, schr. 1894-1896 44 44 U 1899 11 11 U 1900-1901 11 11 Charles Phelps, ship. . . . 1842-1843 3 18 ’5 6 32 u 1844-1847 4 9 4 8 25 u 1847-1849 9 8 13 8 38 u 1850-1852 8 24 32 Charleston Packet, hk. . 1851-1853 22 22 U 1854 2- 2 Charleston Packet, hr . . 1840-1841 7 7 Chase, bk 1841-1842 31 31 u 1843-1844 31 31 u 1846-1848 18 18 Chase, br 1839-1840 16 16 Chelsea, ship. 1835-1837 48 ’4 52 U 1839-1841 45 45 Chile, ship 1836-1837 ‘4 19 23 U 1840-1842 54 '1 55 (C 1843-1845 5 13 6 24 a 1848-1849 5 ’2 7 u 1863 2 2 China, bk 1865-1867 10 ’5 ’9 24 u 1868-1871 22 1 19 42 China, ship 1846-1850 68 68 Chris. Mitchell, ship.. . . 1842-1844 39 39 a 1845-1847 54 54 Cicero, bk 1861-1864 3 18 i ’4 26 1870-1873 44 8 52 Cicero, ship 1835-1836 10 15 3 28 U 1856-1859 9 ie ’2 27 Cincinnati, ship 1846-1848 9 17 i2 38 U 1857-1859 23 3 26 Citizen, ship. ......... 1844-1846 '3 6 i '5 15 Clara L. Sparks, schr. . . 1868 16 16 « 1876-1877 18 ’5 23 U 1878-1879 12 12 a 1879-1880 12 12 u 1891-1895 63 6 69 Clarice, bk 1836-1838 2 u 14 U 1839-1841 43 43 U 1842-1845 46 46 u 1847-1848 15 15 26 Zoologica: N, F. Zoological Society [XIX; 1 Vessel Voyages Sperm Bow- head No. Rt. (Pac So. Rt. ific) No. Rt. (Atla So. Rt. ntic) South. Right (Indian) Hump- back Calif. Gray Total Per Vessel Clarice, hk. 1871-1875 31 31 U 1875-1878 36 36 u 1878-1881 37 37 Clarkson, shij) 1834-1837 54 54 Cleone, hk 1858-1861 20 '5 ’7 32 U 1864-1867 34 2 i i 38 U 1868-1872 17 1 i 31 50 Clifford Wayne, hk 1846-1848 12 12 Clifford Wayne, sMy. . . 1841-1844 34 i 35 Colchis, hk.. 1868-1869 14 14 Colombus, ship 1833 31 i 32 a 1836-1837 42 42 Columbia, ship 1838-1840 ’3 3 a 1846-1850 43 ‘3 46 Columbus, hk 1836-1838 18 18 Columbus, ship 1851-1853 4 14 1 19 Commodore Morris, hk . 1873-1876 40 40 Commodore Morns, ship 1870-1873 70 i 71 Commod’e Rodgers, ship 1825-1827 58 58 Condor, ship 1831-1832 2 29 31 U 1833 2 14 16 U 1833-1834 6 24 30 u 1836-1837 2 48 50 u 1837-1839 3 30 33 u 1839-1840 13 25 38 1844-1845 4 io i9 33 u 1850-1853 17 13 2 2 1 35 Congaree, ship 1846-1850 70 70 U 1851-1854 43 43 Congress, ship 1835-1838 93 i 94 U 1849-1851 16 11 i 2 30 U 1857-1858 1 9 1 11 Connecticut, ship. ..... 1832-1834 8 31 39 Constitution, ship 1843-1846 66 66 u 1848 1 1 Copia, ship 1842-1844 9 26 35 a 1845-1847 1 15 6 ’4 26 Cora, hk. 1839-1841 11 23 34 Coral, ship 1839-1842 103 103 ii 1843-1845 39 10 49 U 1847-1850 85 85 Corinthian, ship 1836 20 20 « 1836-1838 60 60 u 1848-1850 21 21 (C 1857 1 29 30 u 1859-1862 5 '8 6 ’7 26 u 1863-1865 3 41 44 u 1867-1868 21 2 23 Coriolanus, ship. ...... 1851-1852 2 14 i *6 23 Cornelia, hk 1846-1848 26 i 27 u 1854-1857 8 ’3 4 10 25 (1 1864 2 2 u 1871-1873 11 11 1935] Townsend: Distribution of Certain Whales 27 Vessel Voyages Sperm Bow- head No. Rt. (Pac So. Rt. ific) No. Rt. (Atla So. Rt. ntic) South. Right (Indian) Hump- back . Calif. Gray Total Per Vessel Cornelia, ship 1838-1839 13 13 Cornelius Howland, ship 1854-1858 14 14 5 33 U 1867-1870 2 41 *2 45 Cortes, ship 1842-1846 48 48 Cossack, bk 1850-1852 1 10 1 12 a 1858-1859 4 2 34 40 Cowper, ship 1846-1848 5 i3 *8 3 29 Cyrus, ship 1808-1809 62 62 u 1833 4 4 Cyrus (of London) , s/izp 1804-1805 64 64 D. A. Small, hr 1875-1876 22 22 Daisy, br 1908-1909 11 11 (( 1912-1913 26 26 Daniel Webster, ship. . . 1834-1837 89 89 u 1848-1852 15 7 1 23 u 1864 12 12 a 1877-1879 14 1 5 20 Daniel Wood, ship 1853-1856 8 30 38 u 1860-1863 24 3 27 Delight, br 1839 ■7 ^ 7 Delphos, ship 1843-1845 5 is i 24 Desdemona, bk. 1865-1869 32 1 33 u 1869-1872 22 4 26 (C 1876-1879 19 5 25 49 u 1894-1895 9 9 Desdemona , ship 1835-1837 2 20 22 Dimon, bk 1845-1848 31 31 Dolphin, sloop 1763 5 5 u 1764 4 4 Dr. Franklin, bk. ..... . 1852 8 8 a 1862-1864 10 3 13 Draco, bk 1844-1847 33 33 a 1851-1853 22 22 u 1866-1868 28 28 a 1872-1875 45 20 65 u 1878-1879 11 2 12 25 Dryade, bk 1844-1847 12 9 5 26 Dundee of London. . . . 1798 36 36 U 1801 15 15 E. Corning, bk 1855-1856 8 8 E. Nickerson, br 1851 6 2 8 E. A. Swift, schr. ...... 1912 33 33 E. B. Conwell, schr .... 1880-1882 24 24 a 1883-1884 29 29 a 1884 1 1 (C 1885 8 8 u 1885-1887 22 22 u 1887-1888 13 13 (C 1889-1890 30 30 a 1890-1892 50 50 a 1906 13 ■■ 13 28 Zoologica: N, Y, Zoological Society [XIX; 1 Vessel Voyages Sperm Bow- head No. Rt. (Pac So. Rt. ific) No. Rt. (Atla So. Rt. ntic) South. Right (Indian) Hump- back Calif. Gray Total Per Vessel E. B. Conwell, schr. . . . 1906-1907 10 10 u 1907 14 14 E. H. Hatfield, schr. . . . 1861-1862 6 *8 14 u 1867-1868 3 3 u 1876 13 13 a 1877-1878 11 i 12 a 1880 4 ■A a 1881-1882 9 i 10 Eagle, bk. 1867-1869 11 5 1 24 41 Eagle, ship 1841-1843 io 13 6 1 30 Edith May, schr 1868 3 3 Edward, hk 1860-1862 14 14 Edward, br 1816 7 7 u 1817 1 1 Edward Carey, ship.. . . 1854-1858 32 32 u 1859-1864 35 32 67 Edward Everett, bk. . . . 1868 , 6 6 ii 1873-1874 12 12 Eliza, bk 1869-1873 36 2 38 Eliza, ship 1838-1840 10 22 32 Eliza Adams, ship 1836-1838 74 74 U 1846-1848 10 31 i 42 U 1867-1870 48 *7 9 64 u 1872-1876 27 1 1 i 30 u 1877-1878 23 23 u 1879-1883 50 6 5 61 Elizabeth, bk 1831-1832 1 22 23 a 1844-1846 11 2 13 u 1849-1850 23 23 Elizabeth, ship 1837-1839 64 64 U 1841-1844 53 53 U 1845-1847 20 12 2 34 a 1851-1855 68 68 Elizabeth Firth, bk . . . . 1848-1849 4 li 1 i 17 Elizabeth Swift, bk. . . . 1859-1863 36 1 37 u 1866-1867 4 38 *9 51 Electra, ship . 1862-1863 1 ‘i i 3 Ellen, bk 1852-1856 54 5 59 Emerald, bk 1838-1839 8 34 42 U 1840-1842 16 u 6 36 a 1844-1845 34 34 Emerald, ship 1835-1836 i5 38 i 54 u 1844-1847 34 1 35 Emigrant, bk 1845 9 2 11 Emily Morgan, ship . . . 1842-1845 81 '4 85 u 1863-1866 23 ’6 12 3 44 u 1866-1868 19 7 26 u 1869-1871 9 6 4 5 24 Emma Jane, schr 1879-1881 47 i 48 u 1881 5 5 u 1882-1883 24 24 it 1883 12 12 Emma C. Jones, ship.. . 1849-1852 29 20 49 1935] Townsend: Distribution of Certain Whales 29 Vessel Voyages Sperm Bow- head No. Rt. (Pac So. Rt. ific) No. Rt. (Atla So. Rt. ntic) South. Right (Indian) Hump- back Calif. Gray Total Per Vessel Emma C. Jones, shiv.. . 1860 2 7 9 « 1875-1879 67 67 Empire, ship 1844-1846 81 81 Endeavor, hk 1841-1843 19 1 6 26 U 1854-1856 2 ii 3 16 Enterprise, shiv 1837-1840 57 57 u 1843-1844 4 20 24 u 1855 1 6 7 Enterprise, sloop 1760 1 1 Equator, bk 1839-1842 20 20 a 1844-1846 43 43 Equator, ship 1828-1831 48 48 Era, schr 1895-1896 3 3 iC 1898-1899 13 13 a 1900-1901 9 9 a 1905 8 8 Erie, ship 1848-1849 2 15 i3 30 U 1852 4 18 22 Eugenia, bk 1851-1853 49 ’7 56 a 1856-1859 34 ’4 38 a 1860-1864 30 30 u 1865-1868 12 is '4 1 32 a 1870-1871 6 8 14 Eunice H. Adams, br.. . 1884 2 2 a 1884-1885 7 7 cc 1885-1887 57 ’3 60 u 1888-1889 16 16 u 1893-1894 19 19 Euphrates, ship 1846-1848 2 24 *2 28 U 1855-1857 7 34 *i 42 a 1858-1860 3 26 1 30 Europe, bk 1885 1 16 17 Europa, ship 1866-1870 19 20 1 2 ’5 6 53 *Europa, ship 1867-1871 24 49 73 1872-1873 5 5 Exchange, bk 1844-1846 22 22 U 1847-1849 15 i 16 Exile, schr 1850 io 4 14 Express, schr 1878 i 7 8 F. Bunchinia, bk . 1852-1853 20 21 41 a 1857-1858 7 1 8 Fabius, ship 1857-1861 17 16 *2 2 46 77 u 1862-1865 4 9 *8 3 24 Fair Helen, ship 1824-1826 3 2i 24 U 1825-1826 2 16 18 Fairy 1845-1846 21 1 22 Falcon, bk 1876-1878 28 4 32 Falcon, ship 1836-1837 18 38 56 U 1846-1849 2 '8 1 11 a 1852-1853 5 3 8 Fame of Hull, ship .... 1820 11 11 u 1822 6 6 * Not dwplicated 30 Zoologica: N. Y, Zoological Society [XIX; 1 Vessel Voyages Sperm Bow- head No. Rt. (Pac So. Rt. ific) No. Rt. (Atla So. Rt. ntic) South. : Right (Indian) Hump- back Calif. Gray Total Per Vessel Fanny, bk 1852-1855 1 73 74 U 1856-1859 2 48 50 u 1860-1863 17 34 51 u 1865-1868 13 19 *6 i9 i 58 a 1870 17 17 Favorite, bk 1835-1836 6 i4 20 U 1855-1857 3 i ‘4 2 10 Fellows, bk 1848-1849 2 11 13 Fenelon, ship 1837-1838 1 28 29 a 1840-1842 6 40 46 a 1843-1844 7 i ’2 33 46 Fleetwing, bk 1886 '3 3 Florida, ship 1844-1846 io i8 ’2 30 U 1859-1862 4 23 1 i '9 i 39 Fortune, bk 1847-1849 4 ii 5 23 U 1851-1853 4 38 42 Frances Allyn, schr .... 1889-1890 6 6 Frances A. Barstow, br . 1891-1892 3 ’5 ’2 10 Frances Henrietta, ship. 1835-1836 4 27 31 1844-1845 12 i ’5 21 Francis, ship 1830-1832 64 64 Franklin, schr 1878 i 1 u 1880 '3 3 u 1885-1887 20 ii 33 u 1890-1891 51 51 Franklin, ship 1854 4 6 10 G. H. Phillips, schr .... 1876-1877 18 18 1878-1880 31 31 a 1881-1882 14 14 Garland, bk 1842-1844 14 's 22 Gaspe, schr 1922 3 3 Gay Head, bk 1877-1881 18 6 i 25 a 1883-1887 57 50 107 a 1890-1891 37 i 38 Gay Head, ship 1853-1855 72 72 Gazelle, ship 1866-1868 9 9 General Pike, ship 1846-1849 33 33 General Scott, bk 1855-1858 28 23 ’2 ’2 55 a 1875-1878 27 '3 30 General Scott, ship. . . . 1848-1849 13 13 Gentleman, bk 1852-1854 5 6 11 George, ship 1843-1847 36 1 '3 40 a 1862-1863 25 25 a 1865-1866 6 6 George & Martha, ship 1821-1822 3 34' 37 U 1826-1827 6 28 34 u 1827-1828 2 30 32 George & Mary, bk 1877-1878 20 1 21 U 1882 ’4 4 u 1884 3 3 a 1888-1891 88 88 a 1892-1894 69 69 1935] Townsend: Distribution of Certain Whales 31 Vessel Voyages Sperm Bow- head No. Rt. (Pac So. Rt. ific) No. Rt. (Atla So. Rt. ntic) South. Right (Indian) Hump- back Calif. Gray Total Per Vessel George & Susan, hk 1877-1878 1 3 4 George & Susan, ship. . . 1834-1837 66 66 1838-1840 77 77 1846-1848 5 15 i2 32 a 1849-1852 22 9 1 32 u 1852-1856 31 31 u 1857-1861 14 2 14 2 ’4 36 u 1861-1864 17 20 37 u 1865-1868 37 12 i 50 u 1868-1870 11 2 ’3 16 IC 1874-1876 45 33 78 George Howland, ship. . 1850-1852 8 i 9 U 1853-1857 22 is 3 38 u 1858-1861 3 20 3 '8 ‘9 43 u 1862-1864 5 10 5 16 36 a 1866-1869 4 20 1 15 40 George Porter, ship. . . . 1827-1828 4 21 25 u 1835-1836 11 11 u 1848-1849 37 37 George Washington, hk. 1837-1838 ’7 7 U 1838-1839 i 4 5 George Washington, ship 1840-1843 64 64 U 1860 *4 4 Georgia, ship 1833-1834 34 23 57 Gideon Howland 1857-1860 6 18 3 ’2 4 '9 42 Glacier, schr 1864-1865 2 15 17 u 1872 2 2 Globe, hk 1853-1854 i 17 18 ii 1869-1872 19 36 55 Golconda, ship 1836-1837 10 32 42 « 1847-1849 29 i 30 u 1863-1864 2 2 Golconda II, ship 1845-1847 2 is 3 18 Golden City, schr 1875-1876 12 i 13 U 1879 15 15 U 1880-1881 17 17 u 1881-1882 3 1 4 u 1883-1884 18 i 19 a 1888-1889 28 28 u 1889-1891 37 37 u 1902-1903 45 45 u 1903-1904 17 17 u 1904-1905 28 28 Good Return, ship 1828-1829 7 18 25 U 1829-1830 4 27 31 a 1830-1832 12 31 5 48 u 1833-1834 1 35 36 (C 1837-1838 20 20 u 1844-1847 10 17 9 1 37 a 1848-1850 15 9 18 1 43 u 1851-1854 4 39 1 1 45 u 1855-1858 5 27 3 2 37 Governor Carver, hk . . . 1857-1859 12 12 32 Zoologica: N, Y, Zoological Society [XIX; 1 Vessel Voyages Sperm Bow- head No. Rt. (Pac So. Rt. ific) No. Rt. (Atla So. Rt. ntic) South. Right (Indian) Hump- back Calif. Gray Total Per Vessel Governor Hopkins, hr. . 1839-1840 4 4 Governor Strong, ship. . 1817-1819 38 22 2 62 Governor Troup, ship. . 1859-1861 2 2 4 a 1863-1865 3 2i i io 36 a 1868-1870 29 i *2 17 49 Grampus, sloop 1751 3 3 Grampus, stmr 1888 3 3 a 1889 2 2 Grand Turk, ship. ..... 1834-1835 4 22 46 75 u 1836-1837 6 is 51 Gratitude, bk 1857 *2 2 u 1858-1861 23 24 ’4 2 i 54 Gratitude, ship 1849-1851 6 15 15 1 37 u 1851-1852 2 14 1 17 Greyhound, bk 1867-1871 21 21 “ (Westport)... 1868-1870 9 2 11 U 1881-1882 6 is 24 u 1885-1887 23 i 11 35 (( 1892-1897 67 3 1 71 u 1898-1902 146 1 147 u 1903-1906 155 155 u 1910-1912 58 58 a 1913-1914 39 39 Greyhound, sloop .... 1753 9 i 10 Hamilton, ship 1833-1834 38 38 U 1844-1847 ii 6 20 Hannibal, ship 1826-1827 19 19 U 1827-1828 31 31 u 1828-1829 31 31 Harvest, bk 1851-1853 i i7 i 19 Harvest, ship 1829-1831 89 89 a 1848-1852 44 i 45 Hattie E. Smith, schr . . 1881 1 1 a 1881-1883 19 19 a 1884-1885 12 12 u 1885-1887 18 18 u 1887-1889 18 18 u 1892-1893 27 27 u 1894 25 25 Hecla, bk 1844 2 2 ii 1856-1859 20 20 a 1867-1869 11 11 Hector, ship 1832-1834 53 53 u 1835-1837 36 36 u 1840-1843 80 80 Helen Mar, bk 1866 8 8 u 1867-1869 *8 24 32 u 1871-1875 10 27 '6 43 u 1877-1880 10 39 1 50 Helen Snow, bk 1854-1856 35 35 u 1867-1871 15 46 55 1935] Townsend: Distribution of Certain Whales 33 Vessel Voyages Sperm Bow- head No. Rt. (Pac So. Rt. ific) No. Rt. (Atla So. Rt. ntic) South. Right (Incdan) Hump- back Calif. Gray Total Per Vessel Helen Snow, bk 1872 3 1 4 Henrietta of Whitby. . . 1792 18 18 u 1793 6 6 U 1794 6 6 a 1795 24 24 a 1796 9 9 u 1797 14 14 Henry, bk 1845-1847 li 10 ’2 23 Henry, ship 1839 1 1 2 Henry Astor, ship 1835-1839 34 13 i 48 Henry H. Crapo, bk.. . . 1852-1853 34 34 Henry Taber, bk 1855-1859 52 i 53 U 1859-1862 16 16 u 1869-1871 30 i 31 Henry Trowbridge, br. . 1880-1882 9 9 Herald, ship 1829-1830 3 23 26 u 1830-1831 7 24 31 a 1832-1833 4 8 12 (C 1833-1834 27 2 29 u 1835-1837 57 2 ’5 64 u 1838-1840 98 98 u 1848-1852 56 56 u 1865 6 6 Heroine, ship 1831 36 36 a 1832 2 14 16 u 1835-1836 4 13 17 a 1836-1837 3 22 25 u 1837-1839 12 23 35 Hercules, ship 1830 12 21 33 U 1831 16 15 1 32 U 1834-1836 27 3 14 '7 51 *Hercules, ship. ....... 1831 7 34 ■ 41 Hercules II, ship 1847-1850 9 9 Herman, stmr 1909 *2 2 U 1910 4 ,4 U 1911 6 6 Hero, bk 1808-1809 15 ’s 23 Hesper, bk 1834-1838 30 30 Hesper, ship 1831-1834 54 "1 55 Hibernia, ship 1840-1842 18 18 (( 1842-1843 19 22 '8 49 a 1844-1845 1 i3 7 21 u 1851 4 *8 12 (( 1853-1856 12 9 ’2 6 29 u 1861 15 15 u 1866-1869 ii 13 ’7 1 ‘4 i 40 Highlander, bk 1845-1848 41 41 Hobomok, ship 1844-1848 29 '3 ’2 1 35 Honqua, ship 1835-1836 11 '5 23 39 Hope, bk 1845-1847 39 39 Hope, ship 1839-1840 14 23 37 a 1844-1848 44 ’4 48 a 1861-1862 3 3 * Not duplicated 34 Zoologica: N, Y, Zoological Society [XIX; 1 Vessel Voyages Sperm Bow- head No. Rt. (Pac So. Rt. ific) No. Rt. (Atla So. Rt. ntic) South. Right (Indian) Hump- back Calif. Gray Total Per Vessel Hope, ship 1863 1 1 Hopeton, br 1862 8 8 Horatio, ship 1877-1881 34 ’9 43 « 1885-1889 45 3 48 Hortense, hr 1864 4 4 Howard, ship 1841-1844 65 65 Hunter, hk 1868-1871 48 ’2 50 u 1876 6 6 Hunter, ship 1859-1863 34 ’3 *6 43 1864-1865 26 26 Huntress, bk 1856-1857 2 1 3 Huntress, ship 1843 3 3 u 1844-1846 2 4 i2 *6 24 Illinois, ship 1856-1857 1 3 4 Independence, ship .... 1825-1828 144 144 India, ship 1838-1839 11 '8 19 Indian Chief, ship 1851-1854 1 34 1 i 37 Ionia, bk 1855-1857 8 8 Iris, ship 1844-1847 23 ’4 ’4 31 Isaac Howland, ship . . . 1835-1838 63 63 u 1855-1858 58 58 Isaac Walton, ship. .... 1846 i4 14 •Isabella, bk 1852-1854 5 ii 1 17 Isabella, br 1879 4 4 u 1880-1881 3 3 u 1882-1883 6 6 Isabella, ship 1831-1834 57 57 Israel, ship 1846-1847 2 1 3 Izette, ship 1832 1 1 u 1841-1842 12 ’3 49 64 J. E. Donnell, hk 1851-1852 3 15 18 James Allen, hk 1877-1881 26 '7 33 1881-1884 20 ’3 23 James Allen, ship 1844-1847 73 73 James Arnold, ship .... 1853-1856 55 i i 57 (( 1857-1859 18 18 u 1866-1869 51 51 u 1869-1873 21 i '2 24 u 1874-1878 32 1 33 u 1878-1882 27 ’2 8 37 u 1883-1886 39 1 40 a 1892-1894 50 i i 52 James D. Thompson,&A:. 1856-1858 6 13 4 ’3 26 James Munroe, ship . . . 1841-1843 35 9 i 45 James Maury, ship .... 1841-1844 57 ’3 60 U 1852-1855 4 20 'e 3i 61 u 1856-1858 10 6 10 io 36 u 1860-1862 14 23 ’4 41 (C 1864-1867 7 is i 4 1 ’i 29 Janet, bk 1852-1854 9 9 U 1875-1876 41 41 u 1877-1879 54 54 Janus, ship 1833-1834 14 23 37 i 1935] Townsend: Distribution of Certain Whales 35 Vessel Voyages Spe:m Bow- head No. Rt. (Pac So. Rt. ific) No. Rt. (Atla So. Rt. ntic) South. Right (Indian) Hump- back Calif. Gray Total Per Vessel Janus, ship 1835-1836 5 13 17 35 6i 1837-1839 3 19 "i 23 U 1839-1841 9 si 40 a 1842-1843 '2 i2 14 (C 1844-1845 4 13 17 u 1862-1865 19 '2 21 Japan, ship 1832-1833 34 12 46 Jasper, hk 1839-1840 5 i7 22 U 1840-1841 2 13 15 Jasper, ship 1835-1837 8 35 ’5 48 « 1840-1841 16 25 i 42 Java, hk 1860-1863 24 '3 1 28 U 1864-1867 16 1 *6 23 Java, ship 1837-1839 6 24 " 10 '2 42 a 1848-1852 13 i 14 Java of Fairhaven, ship 1838-1840 21 13 ’4 38 Jeanette, ship 1852-1853 27 i 28 Jefferson, ship 1840 19 19 U 1842-1844 31 14 ‘2 47 u 1857-1859 1 5 4 1 11 Jirch Perry, ship 1869 4 4 Jirch Swift, hk 1857-1861 6 10 i 12 ’2 1 ’5 37 Jirch Swift, ship 1853-1855 3 31 1 35 John, ship 1836-1837 11 i4 2i 46 John Carver, bk 1874 2 2 « 1884-1885 7 12 i 20 u 1886 2 2 John Dawson, bk 1853-1855 16 16 u 1856-1859 16 16 u 1859-1861 33 33 u 1862-1864 21 1 22 u 1864-1866 16 16 V! ■ ‘‘ 1867-1869 32 32 1870-1872 42 42 u 1873-1875 44 44 u 1879-1881 18 30 48 u 1883 11 11 John A. Robb, bk. . . . . . 1854-1855 5 5 u 1857-1860 44 i 45 u 1886-1888 20 ’2 i 23 John E. Smith, schr. . . 1851 1 1 John R. Manta, schr. . . 1907-1908 47 47 U 1909-1910 34 .y. 34 a 1925 30 30 Jones, ship 1835-1836 72 72 Joseph Maxwell, hk. . . . 1868-1871 68 2 70 Joseph Maxwell, ship . . 1849-1851 24 24 Joseph Starbuck, ship. . 1838-1841 91 i 92 Josephine, bk. . : 1905-1907 18 42 60 u 1907-1909 25 20 45 Julius Caesar, ship 1854-1855 ’9 18 27 Junior, ship 1857 i 1 Junius, bk 1843-1844 48 48 36 Zoologica: N, Y, Zoological Society [XIX; 1 Vessel Juno, hr. . . . Kathleen, hk a u Kathleen, bk Kate Cory, hr u Kensington, ship Keoka, bk a Kingfisher, hk Kingston, ship a Kutusoff, ship L. C. Richmond, ship . . Laconia, bk u Laetitia, bk u u u u Lafayette, ship. . . Lagoda, bk Lagoda, ship U a Lalla Rookh, ship Lancaster, ship. . . a a Lancer, bk. u Lancer, ship Lapwing, ship. . . . Lark, bk Lark, schr LeBarron, hr Leonora, br Leonidas, br u u Leonidas, ship. Voyages Sperm Bow- head No. Rt. (Pac So. Rt. ihc) No. Rt. (Atla So. Rt. ntic) South. Right (Indian) Hump- back CaUf. Gray Total ' Per Vessel 1838-1839 22 22 1852-1854 16 13 3 32 1858-1859 23 11 34 1860-1863 40 41 1864-1867 30 2 32 1867-1871 95 95 1872-1875 85 85 1875-1878 53 53 1880-1884 44 6 23 73 1887-1890 114 2 116 1892-1893 6 6 1900-1901 40 40 1859-1860 7 7 1861-1862 11 11 1858-1861 18 *5 i i 25 1854-1856 10 10 1858-1860 15 27 42 1861 4 4 1844-1847 22 i 23 1849 5 5 1848-1851 5 i9 ii 35 1834-1837 71 71 1868-1871 23 23 1876-1879 38 i 39 1856-1857 6 6 1861-1863 44 44 1864-1868 56 56 1868-1872 28 23 51 1872-1875 75 75 1876-1877 32 32 1841-1844 41 41 1868-1886 41 is i is i 76 1850-1852 9 18 ’2 ’5 34 1853-1855 6 35 1 42 1860-1863 6 15 7 ‘4 32 1837-1839 32 24 ‘7 63 1841-1843 73 73 1831-1833 73 73 1 1845-1847 11 20 i 32 1851-1853 5 17 22 1877-1881 24 *8 32 1883-1886 28 28 ' 1856-1860 49 49 1856-1859 43 ‘8 '4 55 i 1848 17 5 22 1785 6 i 7 i 1840 13 13 1903-1905 46 ’2 48 1854-1855 24 24 1856-1857 33 i 34 1858-1860 13 13 1861-1863 15 i 16 ! 1831-1833 63 63 1935] Townsend: Distribution of Certain Whales 37 Vessel Voyages Sperm Bow- head No. Rt. (Pac So. Rt. ific) No. Rt. (Atla So. Rt. ntic) South. Right (Indian) Hump- back Calif. Gray Total Per Vessel Lewis, ship 1849-1852 34 34 1857-1860 5 7 27 39 Lexington, hk 1851-1852 7 7 Lexington, ship 1853-1855 7 33 40 Lima, ship 1828-1830 51 51 a 1835-1837 38 i4 52 u 1839-1840 47 47 Linda Stewart, bk 1867-1870 20 20 u 1875-1877 38 38 U 1878-1881 74 ’2 76 Lion, ship 1841-1844 65 i 66 a 1854-1856 12 i 13 Liverpool, ship 1842-1844 6 9 2 8 25 U 1844-1846 14 11 7 32 u 1847-1849 3 32 i 1 37 Loan, ship 1838-1840 35 *4 39 London Packet, bk 1841-1844 54 54 u 1845 2 2 London Packet, ship. . . 1844-1846 18 18 Lottie E. Cook, schr . . . 1884-1885 10 10 U 1886 2 2 Louisa, bk 1853-1856 7 48 55 U 1861-1864 26 ’7 i 34 U 1865-1868 19 2 21 U 1869-1874 18 9 *7 1 44 2 81 u . 1875-1877 48 4 45 97 u 1878-1881 21 3 15 39 iC 1856-1859 4 32 1 37 Louisa, ship 1829-1830 46 '4 44 Lucas, ship 1833-1835 13 33 46 Lucretia, stmr. ........ 1882-1883 3 'i 4 u 1884 4 4 u 1885 9 9 Lucy Ann, ship 1837-1839 1 30 is 44 Lydia, ship 1835-1837 21 5 26 Mabel, bk 1877-1881 21 1 22 Magnolia, ship 1831-1834 101 101 U 1834-1838 81 1 82 Majestic, ship 1857-1860 2 ’4 2 '9 17 Malay, bk 1840-1841 49 49 Manilla, ship. 1791-1792 3 li 14 Manufactor, sloop 1796 4 4 Marcella, bk 1850-1852 18 i 19 u 1853 1 1 u 1854 2 2 u 1859-1861 26 26 cc 1866-1867 4 4 u 1876-1879 44 44 Marcia, ship. 1832-1833 1 28 29 U 1858-1861 1 *9 6 i i 18 Marcus, ship. 1836-1837 1 i7 18 « 1845-1846 1 9 10 Margarett, schr 1911-1912 59 59 38 Zoologica: N, Y. Zoological Society [XIX; 1 Vessel Voyages Sperm Bow- head No. Rt. (Pac So. Rt. ific) No. Rt. (Atla So. Rt. ntic) South. Right (Indian) Hump- back Calif. Gray Total Per Vessel Maria, bk 1836-1838 7 1 8 « 1838-1840 22 22 a 1846-1849 56 56 {( 1862 11 11 Maria, ship 1785-1786 16 4 20 u 1833-1834 42 42 Maria Theresa, ship.. . . 1848-1851 8 io i9 37 u 1859-1860 2 3 i 6 Mariner, ship 1841-1844 60 60 Marengo, ship 1849-1851 7 29 2 38 Maringo, ship 1859-1862 2 16 3 i 22 a 1871-1874 16 20 36 Marion, hk 1856-1858 55 ’2 57 Mars, bk 1841-1844 38 i 39 u 1844-1845 4 4 u 1845-1848 10 ’2 52 64 a 1852-1855 27 27 (( 1856-1859 13 1 *6 '2 22 li 1878-1881 31 7 40 78 Mars, ship 1807-1808 35 35 u 1817 5 5 Martha, bk 1850-1853 44 44 a 1854-1858 16 i 17 u 1858-1862 3 27 2 i '9 42 a 1864-1866 3 8 2 13 u 1867 3 3 6 a 1868-1872 28 28 u 1873-1874 8 63 71 Martha, ship 1828-1829 6 6 u 1834-1836 5 29 ’2 36 (1 1841 2 2 u 1846-1848 1 io 17 28 u 1849-1852 45 45 Martha II, ship Martha of Fairhaven, 1836-1838 17 '7 ’2 26 ship 1838-1856 55 11 66 Mary, ship 1855 1 ie 1 18 Mary Ann, ship 1854-1858 47 47 u 1859-1863 57 57 Mary & Helen 1879-1880 9 27 36 Mary & Martha 1852-1854 1 13 5 19 Mary & Susan, bk 1874-1877 47 47 U 1878-1881 19 19 u 1887 9 9 Mary & Susan, ship.. . . 1847-1849 *2 15 is 30 Mary D. Hume, stmr.. . 1891-1892 39 39 Mary E. Simmons, schr. 1889-1892 120 120 u 1897 15 15 a 1897-1899 31 31 u 1900-1902 62 62 u 1903-1904 100 100 li 1904 3 3 Mary Frazier, bk 1877-1880 23 ■■ i 20 44 1935] Townsend: Distribution of Certain Whales 39 Vessel Voyages Sperm Bow- head No. Rt. (Pac So. Rt. ific) No. Rt. (Atia So. Rt. ntic) South. Right (Indian) Hump- back Calif. Gray Total Per Vessel Mary Frazier, bk 1884-1886 30 30 Mary Frazier, ship 1854-1856 2 36 38 U 1857-1860 8 30 i ‘3 42 Mary Gardiner 1856-1859 12 12 Mary Mitchell, ship.. . . 1835-1837 15 48 ’5 68 Massachusetts, bk. ... . 1860-1864 7 47 2 57 U 1865-1868 4 29 33 Massachusetts, ship. . . . 1849-1850 3 3 U 1852-1856 8 82 i 91 a 1857-1860 9 61 70 Matilda Sears, bk. .... . 1860-1864 16 '5 21 a 1870-1873 22 2 24 u 1873-1877 18 1 i9 38 u 1877-1882 21 56 77 Mattapoisett, bk 1862-1864 13 1 14 U 1864-1866 16 16 U 1867-1868 13 13 u 1870 11 11 u 1873-1874 10 10 u 1879-1881 7 7 u 1882-1884 19 37 56 (1 1886-1888 59 59 Mattapoisett, br 1841-1842 23 23 Menkar, ship 1849 5 '7 12 Mentor, ship 1843-1844 3 20 ii i 35 a 1845-1847 10 21 9 40 Mercury, bk 1873-1876 24 i 1 ’5 31 Mercury, ship 1851-1852 15 15 1859-1860 13 13 Merlin, bk . 1872-1876 46 46 Mermaid, bk 1869-1873 27 27 U 1880-1882 16 16 1883-1885 19 6 25 « 1885-1887 37 4 41 1887-1889 39 4 43 Messenger, ship 1838 3 io 13 Miantonomi, ship 1853-1854 7 7 Midas, bk 1857-1859 5 '8 i 14 1866-1868 4 11 20 1 14 50 Midas, ship 1845-1846 2 5 7 1854-1856 8 8 « 1861-1865 13 6 19 Miles, ship 1831-1832 1 27 28 Millwood, bk 1862-1863 13 13 U 1866 1 1 u 1867 1 1 <( 1869 3 3 Milo, ship 1850-1851 6 ii 27 ii 1851-1854 7 35 ’3 45 Milton, ship 1844-1847 6 11 12 29 u 1847-1851 78 78 u 1851-1855 57 1 58 <( 1856-1859 36 6 46 40 Zoologica: N, Y, Zoological Society [XIX; 1 Vessel Voyages Sperm Bow- head No. Rt. (Pac So. Rt. ific) No. Rt. (Atla So. Rt. ntic) South. Right (Indian) Hump- back CaUf. Gray Total Per Vessel Milton, ship 1861-1864 55 5 3 6 69 U 1865-1869 44 2 46 u 1869-1873 29 57 86 u 1886-1887 2 2 4 Minerva, ship 1845-1848 14 i9 1 *2 2 38 U 1848-1850 16 2 8 26 *Minerva, ship 1845-1847 21 15 5 41 Minerva Smith, ship. . . 1855-1857 2 '4 i6 22 « 1868-1869 23 3 26 Minnesota, hk . 1869-1872 21 i 1 23 u 1881-1883 32 32 Mobile, ship . 1844-1846 31 31 « 1847-1848 16 16 ; Mohawk, ship 1851-1853 64 64 ! « 1855-1858 55 55 a 1859-1862 17 3 20 Monmouth, hk 1844-1845 2 9 ‘4 3 18 ; Montano, ship 1829-1832 97 97 ! « 1845-1848 5 9 is 27 Montezuma, hk 1847-1849 25 25 u 1866-1867 1 *3 4 Montezuma, ship 1844-1847 24 i2 i 2 '8 47 U 1852-1854 15 15 Montgomery, hk 1855-1857 io 10 a 1858-1862 39 i 6 46 Montpelier, ship 1848-1850 5 12 4 3 24 ii 1850-1852 4 20 2 1 27 Montreal, ship 1850-1852 10 39 2 1 52 a 1853-1856 6 43 49 u 1858-1861 3 17 '6 18 i9 63 Morea, ship 1853-1856 4 18 6 28 u 1856-1857 16 2 18 Morning Star, hk 1857-1861 35 35 U 1864-1865 is 15 U 1883-1888 132 io 4s 187 u 1891-1894 85 4 15 104 u 1894-1897 82 82 u 1898-1901 157 157 a 1901-1903 109 109 u 1903-1905 137 i 138 u 1906-1908 128 3 131 u 1910-1912 87 87 Morrison, ship 1844-1845 3 '4 7 Moss, ship 1833-1836 74 74 Myra, hr 1861-1863 7 7 Napoleon, hk 1864-1867 27 27 « 1868-1871 37 i *3 41 u 1878-1882 30 18 48 Napoleon, ship 1855-1858 56 56 Narragansett, ship 1844-1845 7 7 Nassau, ship 1834-1837 82 82 a 1846 1 *5 6 a 1859 '6 i 7 * Not duplicated 1935] Townsend: Distribution of Certain Whales 41 Vessel Voyages Sperm Bow- head No. Rt. (Pac So. Rt. ific) No. Rt. (Atla So. Rt. ntic) South. Right (Indian) Hump- back Calif. Gray Total Per Vessel Nauticon, ship 1849-1851 16 16 Nautilus, bk 1868 *7 7 u 1877-1881 32 '2 34 Nautilus, ship 1835-1838 63 63 a 1839-1840 37 37 Navarch, stmr 1892-1893 12 ii i 24 a 1894-1896 10 10 u 1897 5 5 Navigator, ship 1841-1845 44 44 u 1849-1853 20 20 Navy, ship 1852-1854 4 20 i i 26 Nellie F. Putnam, schr. 1867-1868 7 7 u 1869 4 ’7 11 u 1870 1 6 7 Neptune, ship 1837-1838 6 ii ii 31 1841 18 i 11 30 u 1841-1842 7 1 ’7 15 New Bedford, ship 1844-1847 ii ’8 11 ’2 32 Newport, stmr 1893-1896 36 36 Niagara, ship 1852-1853 33 33 Niantic, ship 1844-1846 2 20 20 42 Niger, ship 1853-1855 15 15 1 i i 33 U 1870-1874 32 161 193 a 1874-1878 62 ’7 69 u 1887-1890 26 13 39 Nile, ship 1833-1835 8 12 i 21 Nimrod, ship 1830 1 22 23 U 1832 1 1 U 1833-1834 h 20 25 u 1834-1835 4 20 24 u 1843-1844 10 30 40 u 1845 1 ’2 3 u 1858-1860 5 1 '2 8 Noble, bk 1856-1857 i9 i i 21 Norfolk, ship. 1832-1833 1 10 11 U 1833-1834 11 11 Norman, ship 1851-1855 27 27 a 1855-1859 31 i 32 North America, bk 1838-1839 25 25 North Star, stmr 1881-1882 7 3 10 Northern Light, bk 1871-1875 13 19 ii i 44 u 1876 2 2 i 5 u 1877 4 9 1 14 u 1878 3 3 il 1879 i4 5 i 20 Ocean, bk. 1862-1863 14 14 U 1879-1881 31 '3 34 Ocean, br 1852 12 12 u 1853 13 13 it 1854-1856 29 i2 41 Ocean, ship 1840-1844 55 55 1866-1868 3 2i 16 34 Ocean Rover, bk 1859-1862 27 6 33 42 Zoologica: N, Y. Zoological Society [XIX; 1 Vessel Voyages Sperm Bow- head No. Rt. (Pac So. Rt. ific) No. Rt. (Atla So. Rt. ntic) South. Right (Indian) Hump- back Calif. Gray Total Per Vessel Ocean Rover, ship 1855-1858 43 43 Op.ean Steed 1870-1871 16 16 Ocean Steed of Chat- ham, N. B., 1868-1869 37 37 Ocean Steed of New York, bk 1868 4 4 Ocmulgee, ship 1847-1850 3 ii 22 36 u * 1854-1857 4 2 13 5 2 2 28 Octavia, bk 1837-1838 3 6 ’2 11 Ohio, bk 1855-1857 26 6 32 u 1858-1862 41 5 46 u 1862-1863 6 2 ’2 10 u 1872-1875 43 43 u 1878 1 *3 4 u 1882-1885 18 18 Ohio, ship 1833-1836 78 3 81 u 1837-1840 93 1 94 u 1846-1847 8 23 31 Olive, sloop 1765 1 1 Olympia, ship. ....... 1847-1851 41 41 Omega, ship 1836-1839 59 59 u 1840-1844 59 i 60 u 1844-1846 28 6 7 41 u 1854-1857 6 3 22 1 32 Ontario, ship 1845 1 i 2 « 1846-1848 4 24 3 31 u 1851-1853 23 23 Orbit, ship 1836-1839 9 39 48 Orca, stmr 1883 3 li 14 Oregon, ship 1857-1861 5 16 i 2 '3 27 Oriole, bk 1863-1864 10 *2 12 Orion, br 1836 12 12 a 1837 6 6 Orion, ship 1829-1832 91 91 u 1845-1849 25 is 38 Orozimbo, ship 1832 1 '2 3 u 1840-1843 19 33 52 u 1843-1845 4 29 4 '9 46 u 1846-1847 4 15 11 30 Orray Taft, bk 1855-1856 28 28 Oscar, bk 1855-1856 3 i 4 Oscar, ship 1837-1838 34 34 Osceola II, fefc 1852-1854 10 ‘8 18 u 1857-1859 10 30 40 u 1860-1862 33 33 u 1863-1866 57 57 u 1867-1870 29 i 30 u 1870-1872 30 i 31 Osceola III, bk. ...... . 1859-1861 30 30 u 1865-1866 19 *2 21 u 1866-1868 26 26 u 1869-1870 21 21 Ospray, bk 1858-1862 40 40 1935] Townsend: Distribution of Certain Whales 43 Vessel Voyages Sperm Bow- head No. Et. (Pac So. Rt. ific) No. Rt. (Atla So. Rt. ntic) South. Right (Inaian) Hump- back Calif. Gray Total Per Vessel Ospray, bk 1863-1864 26 26 1865-1867 24 i 25 U 1871-1873 47 38 85 U 1874-1876 36 36 “ 1880-1884 18 4i 59 Pacific, hk 1860 8 8 a 1865-1866 5 4 ’8 17 Pacific, ship 1833-1835 42 42 U 1842-1843 3 ii '3 17 U 1851-1854 4 6 3 1 14 U 1873-1876 32 32 Palestine, bk 1839-1842 63 63 Palladium, ship 1821-1824 159 159 Palmetto, bk 1869-1871 6 28 34 a 1872-1875 60 60 U 1876-1879 54 54 U 1880-1883 46 46 U 1886 ’5 5 u 1887-1890 55 ’4 59 Pamilia, bk 1855-1858 28 28 Pantheon, bk 1836-1837 14 14 U 1845-1848 18 5 ’7 '3 33 U 1849-1853 27 27 Para, schr 1866-1867 11 11 Parachute, ship 1839-1840 9 38 i 1 49 a 1859-1864 34 34 Parker, ship 1831-1834 98 98 Parnasso, ship 1821-1823 45 45 Paulina , bk 1850-1853 28 ’4 32 a 1854-1857 47 1 48 u 1858-1860 1 9 i 20 31 Pearl Nelson, schr 1893-1896 65 65 1897-1899 54 ’2 56 U 1900-1902 64 64 Pembroke, bk 1846 4 4 Penelope, ship 1788 3 3 Perry, bk 1876 3 3 a 1878-1880 44 44 u 1880 11 11 Persia, bk 1839-1841 34 34 a 1847-1849 29 i 30 Peru, bk 1851-1853 28 28 U 1860-1862 18 18 Peruvian , ship 1848-1852 15 *1 16 U 1857-1858 1 i 2 Petrel, bk 1880 5 5 U 1893-1895 47 47 Petrel, ship 1853-1854 2 11 13 U 1874-1876 20 ’3 23 Phebe, ship 1843-1846 46 '8 ’2 56 Phebe, sloop Phillippe Delanoye, 1754 2 2 ship 1856 2 2 44 Zoologica: N. Y. Zoological Society [XIX; 1 Vessel Voyages Sperm Bow- head No. Rt. (Pac So. Rt. ific) No. Rt. (Atla So. Rt. ntic) South. Raght (Indian) Hump- back Calif. Gray Total Per Vessel Phoebe Ann, ship 1826-1828 47 1 48 Phocion, ship 1835-1836 12 38 50 Phoenix of Nantucket, ship 1834-1836 67 67 u 1838-1839 67 67 1848-1852 49 49 u 1858 ’7 7 Phoenix of New Bed- ford, ship 1822-1824 51 51 Phoenix of Sag Harbor, ship 1838-1840 1 12 23 36 1840-1842 11 31 42 U 1848-1849 1 23 24 Pioneer, bk 1834-1836 27 is 45 (( 1844-1846 6 li 7 '2 26 u 1848-1850 8 is 9 2 32 u 1858-1861 5 3 ’2 i 11 a 1873-1874 39 39 (( 1875-1877 64 64 u 1881 8 8 Platina, bk 1872-1875 41 i 42 U 1875-1878 51 51 U 1879-1882 37 ’4 41 u 1882-1886 36 i 37 u 1887-1890 44 1 45 u 1892-1895 40 2 1 43 u 1896-1897 '3 3 u 1898-1900 44 i ‘2 47 u 1901-1903 85 85 a 1904-1906 66 i 67 u 1908-1910 64 64 Ploughboy, ship 1821-1824 92 92 U 1825-1826 86 86 U 1849 3 3 Plover, bk Plover, ship 1862-1864 9 i 10 1858-1862 39 39 Pocahontas, ship 1850-1852 7 13 i 21 Polar Star, ship 1856-1859 14 '2 4 11 ’2 ’5 i 39 Potomac, ship 1841-1845 109 109 u 1845-1849 97 ’2 99 u 1849-1852 73 73 u 1854-1857 29 i 30 President, bk 1843-1844 11 ‘2 13 u 1854-1855 17 17 u 1862-1864 40 40 u 1865-1868 2 24 ’4 i ‘2 '3 36 u 1878-1881 49 9 58 tf 1894-1896 48 48 President 1, bk 1876 3 3 President II, &A: 1859-1861 10 10 u 1865 2 2 (( 1866-1867 11 11 il 1869-1871 17 17 1935] Townsend: Distribution of Certain Whales 45 Vessel Voyages Sperm Bow- head No. Rt. (Pac So. Rt. ific) No. Rt. (Atla So. Rt. ntic) South. Right (Indian) Hump- back Calif. Gray Total Per Vessel President II, 6/c 1875-1877 45 45 Prudent, bk 1851 5 5 Rainbow, schr 1867-1868 3 3 Rajah, bk. 1839-1841 11 28 39 Reaper, bk 1837-1839 12 4 16 Reaper, ship 1835-1837 51 51 Rebecca Simms, ship. . . 1858-1860 1 16 17 Reindeer, bk 1881-1885 16 8 11 ’2 37 Reindeer, ship 1854-1855 5 5 10 Rhine, bk 1841-1842 7 7 U 1843-1845 18 18 Richmond, bk 1857-1860 9 '9 ’2 ’3 23 Richmond, ship 1844 1 4 5 a 1846-1848 11 8 19 u 1848-1849 4 3 16 23 Ripple, bk 1862 '9 9 Robert Edwards, ship . . 1835-1837 55 55 U 1838-1840 63 63 U 1841-1844 80 80 a 1863-1866 19 16 1 30 Robert Morrison, bk. . . 1854-1857 9 2i i 31 U 1869-1871 14 ’2 16 a 1880-1884 22 37 59 Rodman, ship 1837-1839 43 13 6 62 Roger Williams, ship. . . 1834-1835 16 16 Roman, ship 1840-1841 10 li ’7 19 47 u 1848-1851 37 i 38 u 1853 3 ’2 5 u 1856-1858 39 17 56 u 1860-1861 *3 ii i 15 u 1867 ‘7 7 Roman 11, bk 1858-1859 ’8 ’2 10 Rosalie, ship 1840 6 14 20 Rosario, schr 1894-1895 6 6 Roscius, ship 1850-1852 i 9 1 11 Roscoe, bk 1846-1848 24 1 '7 11 43 U 1859-1860 1 1 2 u 1860-1864 35 ’2 ii 51 u 1865-1869 42 li 53 u 1870-1872 26 26 Rose, ship 1842-1844 41 41 Roswell King, schr 1857-1858 15 i 16 1859-1860 7 7 Rousseau, bk. . . 1866-1870 50 50 Rousseau, ship 1838-1840 48 48 U 1841-1844 55 's 63 U 1854-1856 7 ii 2 '2 22 Rowena, ship 1841-1843 7 34 i2 53 a 1844 1 ‘7 8 Russell, ship 1832-1833 11 12 ’4 27 St. George, ship 1845-1847 2 18 17 2 39 U 1853-1855 3 6 12 i 22 a 1866-1867 2 18 19 39 46 Zoologica: N, Y. Zoological Society [XIX; 1 Vessel Voyages Sperm Bow- head No. Rt. (Pac So. Rt. ific) No. Rt. (Atla So. Rt. ntic) South. Right (Indian) Hump- back Calif. Gray Total Per Vessel Safford, hk 1855 6 6 Sally Anne, shiv 1830-1831 7 ii i9 37 u 1833-1834 17 31 48 Samuel Robertson, ship 1838-1839 11 31 42 u 1846-1847 5 1 6 u Samuel Robertson, 1852-1853 3 i 4 Fairhaven, ship 1847 25 25 U 1848 9 9 Sandwich, sloop 1762 6 6 U 1763 1 1 Sapphire, ship 1837-1838 23 23 1840-1842 26 ii ’2 39 Sappho, hk 1860-1863 27 i 28 Sarah, bk 1856-1858 7 i 8 U 1863-1864 9 9 u 1864 1 1 U 1865-1866 11 11 Sarah W. Hunt, schr . . . 1893 21 21 U 1893-1896 57 57 Saratoga, ship 1849-1852 6 35 2 1 44 Scotland, ship 1860 7 7 Sea Breeze, bk 1866-1870 52 15 37 104 U 1872 3 2 5 Sea Fox, bk 1861-1864 28 28 Sea Queen, bk 1862-1865 65 65 a 1866-1869 39 39 Sea Ranger, bk 1869-1873 25 ’5 30 a 1874-1875 25 25 U 1876-1879 52 15 67 U 1879-1884 32 1 13 22 68 u 1889 1 1 Sea Shell, hk 1853-1856 19 19 Seaflower, sloop 1752 ’2 2 Seine, ship 1840-1842 12 12 u 1842-1844 6 ’9 1 22 38 Seneca, bk 1869-1871 4 19 1 24 Seychelle, schr 1851 1 1 Sharon, ship 1857-1861 1 16 4 1 27 49 Shylock, ship 1833-1834 10 10 Smyrna, bk 1854-1857 16 16 a 1863 2 2 Solomon Saltus, ship. . . 1849-1850 9 20 29 Solon, bk 1859-1860 16 16 U 1860-1862 13 13 a 1863 5 5 a 1865-1866 14 ‘3 17 Solon, br 1839 5 5 South Boston, ship .... 1855-1858 4 33 '7 ’i 45 South Carolina, ship . . . 1836-1837 1 23 24 Spartan, ship 1851-1852 24 24 Splendid, ship 1846-1848 5 26 6 37 (( 1859-1861 78 ’9 87 1935] Townsend: Distribution of Certain Whales 47 Vessel Voyages Sperm Bow- head No. Rt. (Pac So. Rt. ific) No. Rt. (Atla So. Rt. ntic) South. Right (Indian) Hump- back Calif. Gray Total Per Vessel Splendid, ship 1868-1872 42 42 Stafford, hk 1866-1867 16 ‘6 22 a 1868-1870 52 52 u 1879-1883 57 27 84 u 1886-1889 63 1 64 Star King, schr 1892-1894 52 . .W 52 States, ship 1820-1822 29 29 Statira, bk 1858-1860 4 22 ’2 28 Statira, ship 1840-1843 87 87 Stella, bk 1855-1859 28 *1 26 55 1860-1864 31 31 a 1865-1866 18 4 22 Stephania, bk 1865-1868 12 16 i 29 Stephania, ship 1842-1843 6 '8 ’2 16 4 36 a 1844-1846 7 13 20 Stonington, ship 1830-1831 5 17 22 a 1831-1832 , , 22 22 u 1832-1833 1 25 26 Sun, bk 1861 10 10 Sunbeam, bk 1856-1859 23 23 U 1860-1863 32 32 U 1864-1868 16 21 ’2 1 40 U 1868-1871 90 90 U 1872-1875 31 31 U 1876-1878 43 43 u 1879-1882 26 ’3 36 65 1882-1886 75 8 21 104 u 1886-1890 96 11 6 113 1890-1893 98 2 100 a 1893-1895 28 28 u 1895-1897 54 54 u 1897-1900 82 ’3 85 u 1901-1902 84 1 85 u 1902-1904 92 5 97 a 1904-1906 105 1 106 u 1906-1908 94 94 Superior, bk 1853-1856 17 ’2 1 20 Surprise, schr 1879 4 4 Susan, ship 1847-1851 31 31 Swallow, bk 1878-1882 31 14 45 Swift, ship 1849-1852 64 1 65 Sylph, ship 1847 4 4 T. Towner, schr 1908-1911 129 129 a 1912-1914 116 116 Tamerlane, bk 1865-1869 20 12 1 33 ii 1877-1879 16 ’7 23 a 1888 4 4 Thames, ship 1829-1830 1 21 22 Thomas Dickason, bk. . 1839-1840 33 41 '3 77 1869-1871 3 16 11 30 Thomas Dickerson, ship 1853 4 4 1861-1865 4 21 1 27 53 Thomas Hunt, schr .... 1879 1 1 / 48 Zoologica: N, Y. Zoological Society [XIX; 1 Vessel Voyages Sperm Bow- head No. Rt. (Pac So. Rt. ific) No. Rt. (Atla So. Rt. ntic) South. Right (Indian) Hump- back Calif. Gray Total Per Vessel Thomas Nelson, ship. . . 1818 3 3 Thomas Williams, ship 1840-1842 ii 35 ’5 51 Thomas Winslow, br . . . 1842 6 6 Thrasher, simr 1886 '6 6 Three Brothers, ship . . . 1852-1853 6 32 i 39 a 1865-1869 15 43 '2 's '4 72 Thriver, schr 1871 2 2 Timor, ship 1850-1852 3 *3 '2 i 9 Trident, ship 1852-1853 3 11 1 15 a 1855-1859 6 2 8 u 1871 1 1 Triton, hk 1857-1859 40 40 « 1865-1868 25 25 « 1868-1871 9 *3 45 57 u 1872-1875 4 24 3 31 u 1876-1880 37 37 u 1882-1886 22 '5 io 37 u 1887-1888 15 ’2 17 u 1893-1895 3 ’3 6 Triton, ship 1834-1835 i9 19 U 1839-1841 22 ’3 ’2 27 u 1847-1849 33 33 Triton II, ship 1841 ’2 2 u 1850-1851 ’7 16 1 24 u Triton (of Warren, 1855-1858 17 i7 34 R. I.), ship 1840-1841 1 36 37 Tropic Bird, bk 1876-1878 26 26 U 1878-1881 47 i 48 a 1881-1883 8 6 14 Tuscaloosa, ship 1836-1837 2 16 27 45 Tuscarora 1839-1841 2 15 ’7 '5 29 Twilight, ship 1854-1855 8 8 Two Brothers, ship .... 1831 1 29 30 u 1832 28 28 u 1840-1841 '8 22 6 36 Unidentified 1857-1859 30 2 32 a 1825 3 3 a 1822-1823 ’i 25 26 Union, bk 1858-1859 21 21 U 1864-1867 20 *6 26 Union, schr 1873 4 4 ii 1874-1875 6 6 u 1875 3 3 u 1882-1883 7 ’8 15 Union, ship 1795-1796 1 *6 7 United States, bk 1850-1852 45 45 V.H.Hill, br 1878-1880 20 20 Valparaiso, bk 1845-1847 1 ‘9 i4 '6 30 Venice, bk 1849-1850 2i 1 i 23 Vesper, schr 1842-1843 ’2 2 Vesta, br 1841-1842 7 7 u 1845-1846 9 9 1935] Townsend: Distribution of Certain Whales 49 Vessel Voyages Sperm Bow- head No. Rt. (Pac So. Rt. ific) No. Rt. (Atla So. Rt. ntic) South. Right (Indian) Hump- back . Calif. Gray Total Per Vessel Vigilant, bk. . 1870-1874 37 2 39 Vineyard, ship 1839 15 15 u 1845-1846 13 18 i 32 u 1851-1852 17 is 1 31 u 1863-1866 15 17 3 35 Virginia, bk 1856-1859 18 18 Walter Irving, schr .... 1850 13 13 a -1851 2 2 1852 12 12 u 1853 7 7 1854 6 6 (( 1855 8 8 u 1856 1 15 16 u 1857 7 3 10 Walter Scott, ship 1852-1855 11 12 2 25 « 1860-1861 5 2 7 Wanderer, bk 1878-1881 42 2 25 69 a 1919-1920 15 15 Warren, ship 1851-1854 2 io 1 ’3 16 Washington, ship 1834-1835 17 23 i2 6 58 1837-1838 2 17 19 « 1844-1846 66 66 1850 1 1 cc 1850-1853 11 22 i 34 a Washington Freeman, 1854-1857 3 32 *7 i 43 schr 1868 10 10 1869-1870 5 ’9 14 Wave, bk 1867-1869 22 22 U 1869-1870 10 i2 22 U 1871-1873 22 22 u 1874-1876 10 10 u 1877-1879 30 30 u 1879-1881 30 30 u 1886 *2 2 (C 1887-1888 15 i2 27 Waverley, bk 1859-1861 20 3 ’2 ”1 26 Weymouth, ship. 1816-1817 69 69 White Oak, bk 1843-1844 ’4 '5 9 William & Henry, ship 1856 i 1 William A. Graber, schr. 1915-1916 14 14 U 1921 18 18 a William A. Grozier, 1922 41 41 schr 1901 16 16 U 1902 35 35 1903 33 33 u 1904 33 33 « 1905 24 24 a 1906 28 28 u 1907 26 26 a 1908 30 30 u 1909 35 35 50 Zoologica: N. Y. Zoological Society [XIX; 1 Vessel Voyages Sperm Bow- head No. Et. (Pac So. Rt. ific) No. Rt. (Atla So. Rt. ntic) South. Right (Indian) Hump- back Calif. Gray i Total } Per t Vessel t William A. Grozier, schr 1910 38 38? U 1911 31 31 - William Baker, ship.. . . 1838-1839 3 ’9 12^ William Bavliss, stmr.. . 1886-1887 7 4 11 i a 1888 6 1 7 i ii 1889 1 1 > U 1890 4 4i a 1891 1 2 3.V u 1892 2 2i 1894-1895 6 9? a 1899 9 u 1900 8 Si u 1901 2 2:1 u 1905 16 16! u 1906 1 1 • (C 1907 4 4: Wm. C. Nye, ship 1851-1854 i2 13 1 1 1 28 - a 1858-1860 2 25 '2 29: William Hamilton, ship 1839-1840 20 20 ' William Lee, ship 1850-1851 17 ’5 22 William Martiii, schr. . 1858 2 2- 1865 3 ’3 6- a 1877-1878 12 12 William Botch, ship . . . 1856-1859 7 4 1 '2 1 15 William Thompson, ship 1838 3 3 U 1839-1841 40 is 58 : U 1843-1846 36 26 62. a 1847-1849 6 3 26 35 William Wilson, hk. . . . 1860 23 23 William Wirt, ship 1854-1856 5 34 ’2 41 u 1857-1859 2 14 13 29 Winslow, bk 1838-1839 8 8 U 1839-1840 7 7 U 1840-1844 35 ’4 39 U 1852-1854 18 '8 26 Winslow, ship 1805 7 7 Xantho, hk . 1867-1869 82 82 U 1870-1871 19 1 20 Young Hero 1846-1850 51 51 Young Phoenix, ship. . . 1837-1839 65 65 U 1845-1848 37 37 u 1849-1852 33 '3 36 u 1853-1856 5 48 1 1 55 u 1868-1871 41 4 '5 50 Zenas Coffin, ship 1848-1853 19 1 20 Zephyr 1836 6 6 (( 1840-1842 45 45 (( 1843-1846 72 72 a 1856 3 3 PLATE III T “O-M 0J>1 ’'■>01 ■S4i‘£htm^^2^ ''..!• li 'm. r\-: ,,,,. $AJW0^' ^\i' II j^^ ' •'^ IV />»• .vi’s,- •s*A. *( i \ ! i- O V f-*) '( \j 4 V> \- .!,■■■'’ \ L/> '4, ;,;x, .., IpjiiiCSs \ \f\r"^ % „ Vf ;rJMjixdS W L'"'^ . ih.,v ■ ■ v: (A-.C-MJS^nV V ' V, '. , 'i. > h i> ‘'- iiUAl M n y *r f-.., v'.H -A 1)^:1] ) i(*^'3'» <=.. " i . k-‘ !' 'T‘ MJ rl'i *•? ’?',''^.'yJi«'' •'»*'* * '* .. . ^, .„ . , 'vyvf/- ; . ■v/rlis '■'■■■' ' PUTE IV ia « #v ,. .r- . , lywfTOilCrM, jV?*. *<»'^alti»iir>rtr ‘* {•,jn<^?t'H‘!tr. rx,. PLATE IV PLATE I I A 140' 150” OKJfOTSK SJ3A 170' 160* X... X/ (4L:. -'"Vi '-Xs; AUSTRALIA -Uskft • ... / * X, ■- £li j.-s.....,- - aasaqe, Ground K T H ‘ P A ^ C I r h- . •• •« ' ljjf|fl ^y. Archer <5round _C A' A N_ B K A Z I L t t -M ASL_ , 1 ' /■— _ rRRHCH WB^T^ ....... '•V /ii' & t- / A;At ? C^Ytrot A 'r^ L A K T I C O C E A H -V-. INDIA DISTRIBUTION OF THE SPERM WHALE BASED ON LOGBOOK RECORDS DATING FROM 1761 to 1920 CHART A— APRIL-SEPTEMBER, INCLUSIVE Each colored platting represents the position of a whale-ship on a day when one or more whales were taken. Each month's whaling is colored distinctively (See at left, key to colors). Positions on Charts A and B represent a total catch of 36,908 sperm whales. Prepared under the direction of Charles Haskins Townsend -A.tSfI^AJ!|~Y ..«^.,v.r0ty « i:, '(j! ,li««^»^' JkTstA's i,'rr*aj,i3f V « .V *s ■/ i^fr^«!^ ^. ; ... .,.i.: ill, \f.:'!-:jc.} iijisip PLATE j ZOOLOGICA SCIENTIFIC CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE NEW YORK ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY VOLUME XIX. NUMBER 2 THE VAMPIRE BAT A PRESENTATION OF UNDESCRIBED HABITS AND REVIEW OF ITS HISTORY Raymond L. Ditmars Curator of Mammals and Reptiles New York Zoological Society and Arthur M. Greenhall University of Michigan PUBLISHED BY THE SOCIETY THE ZOOLOGICAL PARK, NEW YORK April 3, 1935 ^etat Hor& Zoolosical ^octetp General Office: 101 Park Avenue, New York City d^ffitersf President^ Madison Grant Honorary President, Henry Fairfield Osborn Vice-Presidents, W. Redmond Cross and Kermit Roosevelt Chairman, Executive Committee, Madison Grant Treasurer, Cornelius R. Agnew Secretary, William White Niles* Sioarir of Clasfsf of 1936 Madison Grant, William White Niles,* Lewis R. Morris, Archer M. Huntington, George D. Pratt,* Cornelius R. Agnew, Harrison Williams, Marshall Field, Ogden L. Mills, Vincent Astor, C. SuYDAM Cutting, Childs Frick ailaiis! of 1937 George Bird Grinnell, Frederic C. Walcott, George C. Clark, W. Redmond Cross, Henry Fairfield Osborn, Jr., George Gordon Battle, Bayard Dominick, Anson W. Hard, Robert Gordon McKay, Kermit Roosevelt, Grafton H. Pyne, John M. Schipf Clasis of 1938 Henry Fairfield Osborn, Robert S. Brewster, Edward S. Harkness, Edwin Thorne, Irving K. Taylor, Harry Payne Bingham, Landon K. Thorne, J. Watson Webb, Oliver D. Filley, De Forest Grant, H. de B. Parsons,* George F. Baker ^ctenttfic ^taff W. Reid Blair, Director of the Zoological Park William T. Hornaday, Director Emeritus Charles H. Townsend, Director of the Aquarium C. M. Breder, Jr., Assistant Director, Aquarium Raymond L. Ditmars, Curator of Mammals and Reptiles William Beebe, Honorary Curator of Birds and Director of Department of Tropical Research Lee S. Crandall, Curator of Birds H. C. Raven, Prosector Charles V. Noback, Veterinarian Claude W. Leister, Ass’t to the Director and Curator, Educational Activities Edward R. Osterndorff, Photographer William Bridges, Editor and Curator of Publications Cbitorial Committee Madison Grant, Chairman W. Reid Blair Charles H. Townsend William Beebe George Bird Grinnell * Deceased William Bridges Zoological Vol. XIX, No. 2 THE VAMPIRE BAT A PRESENTATION OF UNDESCRIBED HABITS AND REVIEW OF ITS HISTORY Raymond L. Ditmars Curator of Mammals and Reptiles New York Zoological Society and Arthur M. Greenhall University of Michigan (Fig'S. 3-11], Plates V-VII incl.) This article follows intensive studies of the Vampire Bat, Desmodus rotundus, during trips to Panama and Trinidad dur- ing 1933 and 1934, and observations of specimens in captivity from both areas. Between field reconnoiters, a thorough search of the literature has been made. The work has thus produced a quite complete history by bringing together recorded observa- tions, references to studies of important pathogenic significance and notes of studies made by the authors. Thus collectively clad, the vampire assumes a more interesting and specialized form than past description has accorded it. The studies of Desmodus outlined here were suggested to the senior author in the summer of 1932 during a collecting trip in Central America. The trip was concluded with a call upon Dr. Herbert C. Clark, Director of the Gorgas Memorial Labora- tory in Panama. Dr. Clark told about his work with Dr. Law- ence H. Dunn in proving the Vampire Bat to be the carrier of a trypanosome existing in the blood of cattle, to which cattle were resistant, but fatal to equines. As cattle ranged in large numbers with horses and mules at night, and bats indiscrimi- nately attacked both, the working out of remedial measures was a highly important problem.^ 1 Summarized in the American Journal of Tropical Medicine. Vol. XIII, No. 3. May, 1933. 53 54 Zoologica: N, Y. Zoological Society [XIX; 2 Several vampires v^ere under observation at the Memorial Laboratory. They had been maintained for a number of months on a diet of blood obtained at a nearby slaughter house and defi- brinated to keep it in fluid condition. Here was a demonstration of the practicability of maintaining this highly interesting species as an exhibit at the Zoological Park. Dr. Clark, how- ever, could spare none of his specimens. All were needed to demonstrate the susceptibility of the vampire itself after biting infected cattle or being injected with the organisms. It was there indicated, and since proved, by Clark and Dunn, that after biting infected cattle, the bat continues its blood feasts night after night, but itself succumbs in a period of about 30 days. The senior author decided to return to Panama the follow- ing summer and search the caves where vampires had been cap- tured. Hence in August of 1933, accompanied by Arthur M. Greenhall, then a student at the University of Michigan, Panama was again visited and Dr. Clark provided guides to explore the Chilibrillo caves in the Chagres valley. We were informed that the caves were of limestone formation, with horizontal tunnels. In some parts these gave way to large chambers, from which again, other tunnels led into the mountain. We were equipped with headband lamps and batteries carried on our belts. In a shack near the caves was an illustration of the fre- quency with which humans may be bitten by Vampire Bats. A boy about ten years old had been bitten five times during a week, and always on the under surface of his toes while he slept. He had bled profusely, and the earthen floor beneath his slatted bed was blood-stained each morning. The route to the caves led through cattle trails in low, green tangle, with ankle-deep mud most of the way, as the period was the rainy season. There was a steep slope near the caves and a growth of rain-forest. The Panaman guides, pushing through barricades of vines, disclosed a hole in the ground. It appeared to be little more than the entrance to a coal chute. We slid in and found ourselves in a horizontal tunnel in which we could walk upright in single file. The tunnel soon grew wider and higher, the floor slippery with red mud. Through portions of this entering gallery there was swiftly flowing water, knee deep in places. It appeared to come through the sides, then to 1935] Ditmars & Greenhall: The Vampire Bat 55 seep through crevices in the floor. By pointing a light overhead, a double procession of big bats could be seen, the two streams flying in opposite directions. After we had worked forward a fair fraction of a mile, the subterranean stream gave way again to the slippery floor. The hallway became larger and now showed side galleries. The guides stopped there to assemble the handles of the nets by which the bats were to be taken. The atmosphere was unlike that of caves in the temperate latitudes ; the air was hot, heavy and sweetish, the latter condition resulting from the odor of thousands of bats. Common on the limestone walls were huge roaches, of pale, straw color. Another insect denizen, not ap- parent without search of nearby crevices, but possibly common enough, was a member of the hemiptera, of the genus Triatoma. This is a small, reddish, blood-sucking bug, coming under strong suspicion in recent studies of carrying the organism of Chagas fever, a disease produced by a trypanosome in human blood, diagnosed and discovered by Dr. Emilio Chagas. Here and there, in startling contrast on the walls, were spider-like creatures with a spread of limbs of five inches or more. These arthropods appear to be cave-dwelling members of the Thelyphonidae, to which the Whip Scorpion belongs. We finally entered a big chamber, the arched ceiling of which appeared to rise about 50 feet. The ceiling looked smooth, yet it was rough enough to provide a hanging foothold for thousands of bats of several kinds. Each species hung in a cluster of its own, the smaller, insectivorous kinds and smaller fruit bats on the sides. Near the dome of the ceiling was a mass of spear-nosed bats {Phyllostomus) , in a cluster about 15 feet in diameter. These bats have a wing spread of about 20 inches and bodies the size of a rat. Our lights disturbed them and caused a great shuffling of wings and movement of innumerable faces. There was considerable chattering from these larger bats, and their teeth showed plainly. The side galleries were also full of bats and we inspected these in search of the big carnivorous Phyllostomus which could not be captured in the high chamber. We caught 18 and ‘Tought’" them into a mesh cage. All the while we were watching for vampires, which may be distinguished by their habit of running 56 Zoologica: N, Y. Zoological Society [XIX; 2 along the vertical walls and darting into crevices to hide. In a deep side gallery we found bats of a kind not noted in the large chamber, but again no vampires. After several hours we re- traced our way along the subterranean stream until, with a feeling of relief from the oppressive atmosphere, we saw a faint glow that showed we were close to the entrance of the cave. After a breathing spell we sought and found the entrance to another cave shown on our chart. The route sloped easily toward a circular chamber fully 100 feet in diameter, though not more than eight feet high. Here were hundreds of bats hanging in clusters, and all of one kind — a medium-sized spear- nosed bat of a fruit-eating species. They were not timid and could be closely approached before they took flight. When a hand was waved close to them the result was a pouring of winged bodies from the ceiling until the air was fllled. Again we made an unsuccessful search of the walls for vampires. The third cavern had an almost vertical • entrance through a well-like shaft. There was not room enough to get down with the nets. We lowered ourselves into the hole, reached a horizon- tal turn-off, and on flashing our lamps against the wall, saw several bats run like rodents along the vertical surface, then dart into crevices. We immediately identified them as vampires, but all escaped. With lights turned out we waited a half hour, but the bats did not reappear. We explored another gallery and found a spot where a slender man might squeeze through. We were too fatigued to continue, however. The only other passage sheered off at a ledge beneath which ran a channel of water, from wall to wall, which looked as if it were quite deep. There the day’s reconnoiter ended. The following morning we returned to the cave where the vampires had been seen and with much caution descended to the widened area, keeping the lights out and feeling our way. Ready with some small nets we had prepared the previous evening, we flashed the lights on the wall where the bats had been seen, but no vampires were anywhere in sight. We reasoned that the vampires had retreated into the re- cesses of the tunnel with the deep water, or into the narrow shaft where only a slender man could get through. Greenhall 1935] Ditmars & Greenhall: The Vampire Bat 57 worked into this small, horizontal shaft and saw several vam- pires in a widened space ahead. He captured two and the others made their way into the tunnel with the deep water, which con- nected with a passage ahead. Of the two vampires captured, one soon died. It was half grown and possibly had been injured in the net. The other, an adult female, lived for approximately four months after cap- ture and, slightly more than three months after being caught, gave birth to a single vigorous infant. While as yet we do not know the period of gestation, the length of time from capture of the mother to birth of the young shows a surprisingly long period of pregnancy for such a small mammal. After obtaining the female vampire, we left for the Atlantic side of the Canal Zone. Dr. Clark provided two quarts of defi- brinated blood, fresh from the automatic refrigerator of his laboratory, but from that moment until we reached New York the vampire was a problem. We were naturally very keen to get it back alive. We were not worried about the 18 big carnivorous bats; they were feeding ravenously and fresh meat could be readily obtained. With an assortment of crates containing rep- tiles and amphibians, and cases of preserved specimens for the museums, we boarded a train for Colon. The defibrinated blood was in a package beside us, and the cage containing the vam- pire was swathed in black cloth. Dr. Clark had cautioned us to get the blood on ice again as soon as possible. On the Atlantic side it was necessary for the senior author to stop two days at the Navy Submarine Base at Coco Solo to deliver several lectures. The commanding officer invited us to stay at his residence and here the defibrinated blood was placed on ice, while the bat was domiciled in the garage. That night some of the blood was measured out in a flat dish. The amount would have filled a fair-sized wine-glass. The bat hung head downward from the top of its cage when the dish was placed inside and would not come down to drink while we were there. Early the next morning we inspected the cage and found the dish nearly empty. That routine never varied during the ten days’ voyage to New York, with stops at Colombian ports. We never saw the bat drink the blood, but in the quiet of the night she took her meal, 58 Zoologica: N. Y. Zoological Society [XIX; 2 At the Park the senior author decided to keep the vampire in the Reptile House where the temperature was automatically main- tained and the atmosphere was damp, like a greenhouse. In roomy quarters she quickly settled down. Blood was defibrinated in the Park’s research laboratory and the dish was never placed in the cage until dark. For several weeks, however, despite cau- tious inspections with a flashlight, no observations of her visits to the dish could be made, although at some time during the night the blood was consumed. At last the vampire became tame enough to show a lively interest when the dish was placed in the cage. She would crawl down the mesh side a few steps, peer at the dish, then creep back to her favorite nook in a corner, where she would hang head downward, by one leg. Each night she came further down and wandered along the sides of the cage before retreating. Her deliberate motions were surprising: a slow stalk, head down- ward, and a retreat equally deliberate. Her subseouent actions added much to information gleaned from the history of the species. When the blood had been set in the cage, the observer took his stand in what developed into a series of nightly vigils. Finally there came a night when the bat descended the side of the cage with her usual deliberation. Reaching the bottom, she started across the floor with wings so compactly held that they looked like slender forelimbs of a four-footed animal. Her rear limbs were directed downward. In this wav her body was reared a full two inches from the floor. She looked like a big spider and her slow gait increased that effect. Her long thumbs were di- rected forward and outward, serving as feet. Anyone not know- ing what she was would have been unlikely to suspect her of being a bat. In this trip to the dish it appeared that an unpub- lished habit of the vampire had been observed, and this, possibly, was the method the bat used for prowling over a sleeping victim in seeking a spot to use the highly perfected teeth in starting a flow of blood. But other revelations were in store. Bending over the dish, the bat darted her tongue into the sanguineous meal. Her lips were never near the blood. The tongue was relatively long. It moved at the rate of about four darts a second. At the instant 1935] Ditmars & Greenhall: The Vampire Bat 59 of protrusion it was pinkish, but once in action it functioned so perfectly that a pulsating ribbon of blood spanned the gap be- tween the surface of the fluid and the creature^s lips. In 20 minutes nothing remained but a red ring at the bottom of the dish. The bat's body was so distended that it appeared spherical. She backed off from the dish, appeared to squat, then leap, and her wings spread like a flash. She left the floor and in a flying movement too quick for the eye to follow hooked a hind claw overhead and hung, head down, in her usual position of rest. Gorged and inverted, she preened herself like a cat, stopping oc- casionally to peer out of the cage in the light of the single, shielded lamp to which she had become accustomed. Summarized, these observations appear to add much to the history of Desmodus. In less than half an hour it had been demonstrated that the vampire can assume a walking gait as agile as a four-legged animal ; that the reason for its long thumb is its use as a foot on the wing stalk ; that it is not a blood-suck- ing creature as has long been alleged; that it can gorge itself prodigiously and assume an inverted position to digest its meal. The problem of recording these actions on motion picture film was at once considered. The outlook was doubtful. If the vampire had been hesitant about performing up to that evening in the illumination of a single, shielded light, it appeared that lights of enough actinic power for photography, yet tolerable upon the bat, would necessitate a slow introduction and increas- ing the strength of the lamps. The observer's plan was to build up the illumination, night after night, through a resistance coil, or dimmer. Two weeks were spent in gradually increasing the strength of the light. Ultimately the bat tolerated three 500 watt bulbs, with a reflector. The scenes were exposed on 35 mm. pan- chromatic film. The lens employed was a 4-inch Zeiss, with long light-cone. Results were clear and satisfactory and the greater number of the illustrations accompanying this article are en- largements from the motion picture scenes. Since contentions as to new habits, based upon a single specimen, are far more satisfactory if they are afterward sub- stantiated by observations of additional individuals, it was de- termined that field observations should be continued and add{- 60 Zoologica: N. Y. Zoological Society [XIX; 2 tional vampires obtained during the summer of 1934. Mean- while the junior author started a search of the literature for observations other than the mere statement that the vampire is a “blood-sucking” animal. This search, conducted in the library of the University of Michigan, revealed an interesting continuity of inferences concerning habits, and some authentic observa- tions. Beginning with the earliest descriptions of the habits of the Vampire Bat, allegations point to a blood-sucking creature. This is seen in the writings of Aldrovandi, Shaw, Cuvier, Button, Geoffroy St. Hilaire, Swainson, Gervais, Hensel, Goeldi, Quelch and others. Recent writers such as Gadow,2 Duges^ and Her- rera4 have indicated that the vampire applies its lips to the wound made by specialized teeth, in order to pick up the ensuing flow of blood. Charles Darwin appears to have been the first scientist to observe a vampire in the act of drawing blood and note its procedure with satisfactory clarity. He secured a bat and definitely recorded the sanguineous habits of Desmodus. Pre- vious to this, several larger species of bats had been under sus- picion. Darwin’s observation, however, did not change the belief that Desmodus was a blood-sucking type.s Nor could anything to the contrary be found in comparatively recent writing until the publication of an article by Dr. Dunn, in 1932,« containing the following: “The vampire does not suck blood, as popularly believed, but takes it up with its tongue, seldom placing its mouth on the wound except when the latter is first made or when the bleeding is very slow. If the wound bleeds freely, the bat simply laps up the blood, hardly touching the tissues, while if the bleeding is scant the bat licks the wound.” Thus Dunn’s observation, but a few years past, takes pre- cedence, as far as could be found, in rectifying a long procession of erroneous inferences about the feeding habits of the vampire. - Gadow, H., 1908. Through Southern Mexico. Witherby and Co., London, pp. 440-446. ^ Duges, A., 1911. La Naturaleza Mexico. Ser. 3, T. I., Fasc. 2, pp. 1-4. Herrera, A. L., 1911. La Naturaleza Mexico. Ser. 3, T. I., Fasc. 2, pp. 4-6. ® Darwin, C., 1890. Naturalist’s Voyage Round the World. John Murray, London. ® Dunn, L. H., 1932. Journal of Preventive Medicine. Vol. 6, No. 5, pp. 416-424. 1935] Ditmars & Greenhall: The Vampire Bat 61 In further elucidation is a letter from Dr. Clark, dated April 18, 1934, and reading in part: ‘‘Our vampire does not suck the blood. It uses its tongue to collect the blood, in a back and forth motion, rather than as a dog or cat laps up water and milk. I have seen them feed from the edge of cuts on horses, but, of course, never got close enough under these conditions to see the tongue in action. Animal feed- ings offered the bats under laboratory conditions establish the fact that they lick the blood.’' As to the quadrupedal gait of the vampire, apparently the first mention of it is in the works of the Rev. J. G. Wood,^ who states that vampires can walk, rather than grovel like other bats, but the description is insufficient in indicating the habit. Dr. William Beebe,^ in his book outlining experiences in British Guiana, states: “We ascertained, however, that there was no truth in the belief that they (vampires) hovered or kept fanning with their wings . . . Now and then a small body touched the sheet for an instant, then, with a soft little tap, a vampire alighted on my chest. “Slowly it crept forward, but I hardly felt the pushing of the feet and pulling of the thumbs as it crawled along. If I had been asleep, I should not have awakened.” Dr. Beebe’s observation, though made in the dark, is good substantiation of the senior author’s surmise about the soft gait of the bat in reconnoitering its prey. Dr. Beebe’s description of the “pushing” of the feet and “pulling” with the thumbs does not however, define the actual action of the vampire, which tvalks, with body well elevated from the ground and the elon- gated thumbs used as feet. In further substantiation of the observation that the bat has a walking gait, the senior author was informed by Sacha Siemel, an explorer of the Brazilian jungle, that while he was conduct- ing a party close to the Bolivian frontier, a number of vampires attacked the horses. Mr. Siemel, with a flashlight, carefully noted the actions of the bats. Some he saw lapping blood from fresh wounds, while others, as yet undecided upon areas to bite. ^Wood, J. G., 1869. Illustrated Nat. Hist., pp. 116-118. G. Routledge & Sons, London. ■5 Beebe, W., 1926. Edge of the Jungle, pp. 18-21. Garden City Pub. Co., New York. 62 Zoologica: N. Y, Zoological Society [XIX; 2 stalked back and forth over the animals’ backs, walked among the matted leaves of the forest floor, or hopped from one spot to another. Observations during 1934: For the tropical reconnoiter of this year, the senior author planned a trip along the entire chain of the West Indies, terminating at its southerly end in collecting work in Trinidad and British Guiana. The junior author left a month ahead, on July 19, bearing a letter which put him in contact in Trinidad with Professor F. W. Urich of the Imperial College of Tropical Agriculture. Professor Urich he found en- gaged in an investigation, operating on a government grant, of the transmission of paralytic rabies by Vampire Bats. The disease was seriously prevalent among cattle and thus far fatal, although vaccine is now being administered to immunize the herds. The disease was also fatal to about 35 humans over a period of years. They were dwellers in the back areas where vampires are commonest, and the bat is not known to attack humans in the cities and towns. Professor Urich and his field assistant, J. P. L. Wehekind, extended much aid in getting together a collection of various specimens for the Zoological Park and providing transportation to different parts of the island. Several days after arrival in Trinidad the junior author, accompanied by William Bridges, captured seven vampire bats in the Diego Martin cave.9 The newly captured bats were taken to the Government Stock Farm and placed in a small framework building with sides of wire screen. In this building was another vampire that had been under the observation of Professor Urich for about three months. He had studied its feeding habits on goats and fowls. This bat was tame enough to come down and feed while observers stood quietly in the room. Notes made by Professor Urich dur- ing the studies of himself and his field assistant appeared in the monthly reports of the Board of Agriculture of Trinidad and Tobago. From these. Professor Urich granted permission to quote as follows: “May Report. (Observation on May 19^ 1934). When I got there at 9:40 P.M., found the bat feeding on the left foot ® For details of a month’s collecting work in Trinidad and Demarara, note serial account by William Bridges, N. Y. Sun, July 30 to Sept. 12, 1934. 1935J Ditmars & Greenhall: The Vampire Bat 63 of the cock, about 1 inch below the spur. The bat does not suck the blood, but laps it. Bat fed for twelve minutes from the time I arrived, the cock standing absolutely still. Then the cock start- ed to walk, the bat following along the ground, and fed again. The cock became restless and walked away. Then it went into a corner of the cage, on the ground.’’ (Observation by Wehe- kind) . “June report. (Observation on June 27, 1934). Bat started feeding at 8:30 P.M. and finished at 8:40 P.M., being so gorged that he could scarcely fiy. Bat dropped straight on goat and started to feed. No hovering.” (Observation by Wehekind). In a later report. “As the Desmodus fed readily in captivity on fowls or goats, Mr. Wehekind was able to ascertain the method of feeding of these bats on fowls. It is quite different as stated in some records, the principal features of which is that the bat does not hover around its victims, does not suck blood, and does a fair amount of walking around on the victim to secure a suitable place for feeding. This is carried out by making a narrow groove in the place selected and lapping up the blood as it exudes from the wound. The bat always returns to an old wound on the same animal on its daily feeding. All these ob- servations were verified by me (F. W. Urich) on several oc- casions.” The junior author of the present review adds the following notes from observations made in the screened house where the bats were quartered: “On Friday, August 3, 1934, at 6 P.M., Professor F. W. Urich and myself went to the Government Stock Farm to see the condition of the captive Vampire Bats. One male vampire has been under Professor Urich’s observation since May 18. It is known as Tommy.’ When we caught seven additional vam- pires, Tommy was placed in a cage by himself, as it was known that he was free from paralytic rabies. Professor Urich then attempted to feed Tommy with defibrinated blood. The bat was used to feeding upon goats and fowls that were introduced into the cage and evidently did not relish the diet of prepared blood in a small dish. It seems to have taken a small quantity, but we thought it best to release it with the others after the necessary quarantine. 64 Zoologica: N, Y, Zoological Society [XIX; 2 “At the time we entered the bat cage we found that a goat had been placed inside for the other vampires to feed on. The goat had been freshly bitten, as I noted three open wounds, two on the left side of the neck and one on the right, from which blood was oozing. “The goat was calm, standing in one corner and no bats were feeding when we entered. Tommy was released from his quarantine quarters, flew and attached himself by the hind foot on the screening of the house, about a foot and a half from the sill. The goat was standing not far away from the vampire. The bat remained hanging for about five minutes, the thumbs bracing the body, the wings folded close to the arms. After a short. in- terval, the bat showed signs of movement. The head nodded ; the lips were drawn back, exposing the large canines and protrud- ing incisor teeth. The bat’s gaze finally rested upon the goat. I was watching approximately four feet away from the bat and the goat was nearer to me. Slowly the bat moved down the screen, a deliberate stalk. The fore and hind feet were lifted high from the wiring and the body was well above the mesh. The bat stalked down and I noticed that the movement of the forearm in the stride was exceptionally slow, the wings folded tightly. From two to three minutes were required to traverse the distance from the original position to the sill. Upon arriv- ing at the edge of the sill, the vampire hung from its hind feet and dangled over the edge into space. There, it remained for about two more minutes. The goat was still standing in the same position. Suddenly and silently the vampire launched itself into the air and lightly landed on the middle portion of the goat’s back. There was still no movement on the part of the goat. I moved quietly forward until I was but two feet from the goat. Tommy stalked to the shoulder and neck regions of the animal. After a minute or so of searching, the bat buried its head close to the skin of the goat. There were a few up and down motions of the bat’s head.io The goat then took a few steps forward and turned its head to the right and the left. The bat drew itself up but continued the nodding motions. The goat walked around the room rather rapidly, the vampire hanging on and thus riding its host. The goat passed by me, then stopped, and* I noticed that The act of pushing aside the pelage and of biting. 1935] Ditmars & Greenhall: The Vampire Bat 65 blood was exuding from a small wound and the bat was lapping it with a rapid darting of the tongue. The goat started to walk again and passed under a sort of table, a board of which brushed heavily against the animal’s back. The goat was, in fact, obliged to slightly lower itself to pass under. The vampire quickly scut- tled down the shoulder of the goat to avoid being brushed off. When the goat cleared the table the bat as quickly returned to the wound and continued lapping. We then forced the goat to go back under the table several times, the bat dextrously avoiding being hit by dodging down the shoulder. The movement was very agile and reminded me somewhat of the behavior of a crab. The bat could move both forward, backward and sideways, but seemingly preferred head first. “I then reached out my hand and succeeded in touching the vampire, which attempted to dodge. It did not, however, make any movement to fly. The goat by now was exceptionally rest- less and ran back and forth around the room. It was a timid ani- mal and it was of us that it was afraid. When we left, the bat was still riding the goat.” Later visits to the enclosure showed some of the other bats flying down from the ceiling, landing on “all fours” upon the floor, then hopping like toads from one spot to another, instead of assuming the walking gait. On one occasion a bat was seen to be so gorged and heavy from its sanguineous meal that it slid off the back of a goat to the floor. It was unable to launch itself in flight from the floor, hence climbed the wall, with head in- verted, and when midway up launched itself in flight, returning to its customary hanging place on a ceiling beam. When the senior author arrived in Trinidad, he spent con- siderable time observing the bats during the early evening, in the screened room. His notes on feeding actions would be noth- ing more than repetition of what has already been brought out. What he noted particularly, was the general tolerance of the goat to bats which crawled over its back or even wandered up the neck to the head. For a time after alighting on a goat, the vam- pire was not inclined to bite, but rested on the dorsal area, a bit forward of the shoulder, or clung to the side, where it looked like a big spider. This latter position is shown among the plates accompanying this article. The wandering of the bat upon the 66 Zoologica: N. Y. Zoological Society [XIX; 2 strangely tolerant host, the occasional lifting of the bat’s head, the leer that disclosed its keen teeth, and the observer’s realiza- tion that all of this pointed to a sanguineous meal, produced a sinister and impressive effect. When the wound had been made, the tongue of the bat seemed to move slower than when lapping blood from a dish, and was extended far enough to come well in contact with the tissue. Goats of the laboratory herd, which had been previously bitten while heavily haired, showed bare spot surrounding the area of former wounds. The wounds themselves had healed as a slightly indicated ridge, from three-sixteenths to a quarter of an inch in length, but the area devoid of hair was as large, or larger, than one’s thumb nail. Apparently the hair had been shed in the area of the wound. Here may be a condition of “desensitization” in a vampire bite, with attending destruction of hair follicles. It has been suggested, though not with satisfactory evidence, that the saliva of the bat contains an anticoagulant, which might account for many bites bleeding for several hours. The term “desensitization,” as here used, may be rather a loose one, but it signifies that something abnormal has happened to the tissue besides the opening of a mere wound by specialized and lancing incisor teeth. There can certainly be no injection of an anti- coagulant, but there is a possibility of the application of some salivary secretion during the action of the bat’s lapping tongue — a secretion retarding the formation of a clot about the wound. This matter will be considered in a treatment of physiological characteristics in following paragraphs relating to investigations now under way with four vampires in possession of the senior author. Field observations in Trinidad indicated vampire bats to be fairly common, but not generally distributed. Near the base of the Aripo heights, particularly, frequent bites were reported. The bats attacked cattle, swine and poultry. Sows were bitten upon the teats and the wounds in healing so shrivelled these members that the animals were unable to nurse their young. Most fowls were unable to survive the loss of blood and were found dead in the morning. Around a dish of defibrinated blood, the feeding motions of the four vampires brought back from Trinidad duplicated the 1935J Ditmars & Greenhall: The Vampire Bat 67 notes made upon the Panama specimen of the preceding year, though the latter represented a different subspecies. The ani- mals so gorge themselves that their bodies become almost spheri- cal. This gorging consumes from 20 to 25 minutes. In some experiments with large fowls, weighing up to eight pounds, the bats were observed to be extremely cautious in their approach, slowly stalking in a circle wide enough to keep out of reach of the bird’s bill. An action of that kind might readily kill a light-bodied bat. After several circular manoeuvers, an approach was made to the fowl’s feet, the bat feeling its way for- ward, inch by inch, and finally nibbling gently at the under sur- face of the toe. This appeared to serve the purpose of getting the fowl accustomed to its toe being touched. If the fowl made an abrupt move, the bat would dart backward, then slowly stalk forward to resume its attack. Whether any slight “shaving” of the tissue was taking place and a salivary secretion was being applied by the tongue it was impossible to determine, as the bats were too timid to bear extremely close inspection. After these preliminaries, however, the mouth was rather slowly opened as if to gauge precisely the sweep of the incisor teeth, and then there was a quick and positive bite. While it has been customary to allege the utter painlessness of vampire bites, in several in- stances where fowls were under observation, there was a decided reaction of motion on the birds’ part, showing that the bite was sharply felt. If the fowl moved, the bat darted back, but imme- diately returned to the wound, now freely bleeding. From this point the bat continued its meal and the fowl paid no further attention to it. Physiology : Desmodus is no larger than the larger insecti- vorous bats. A particularly good female example of D. rotundus rotmidus, from Brazil, shows a length of body of four inches and a wing spread of 13 inches. The incisor teeth are extremely sharp and have a curvature that forms a scoop-like mechanism. The incisors are well in advance of the canines. The lower incisors are widely separated, forming a partial channel for the darting motion of the tongue in taking up blood from a wound. Examination of bites shows a crater-like wound. The sharp upper canines, being set far be- hind the incisors, appear to play little part in most wounds. 68 Zoologica: N, Y. Zoological Society [XIX; 2 Fig. 3. Head of Vainpire Bat, Desmodus rotundus murinus Wagner. The specialized dentition includes sharp upper incisors for lancing and inducing a flow of blood, the crowding backward of the upper canines, and separation of the lower incisors to form a channel for the narrow and elongate tongue. Experiences of reliable observers point to a remarkable painlessness of the average vampire bite. There are statements that victims knew nothing of the attack, and would have re- mained ignorant of such a happening had they not found blood stains the following morning. An expedition from the University of Michigan in Santa Marta, Colombia, may be cited “We did sleep, but so soundly that it was not until morning that we discovered that we had been raided during the night by Vampire Bats, and the whole party was covered with blood stains from the many bites of these bats. It may seem unreasonable to the uninitiated that we could have been thus bitten and not be disturbed in our sleep, but the fact is that there is no pain produced at the time of the bite, nor indeed for some hours af- terward.” In a previous paragraph it has been noted that a fowl intro- duced into a cage with vampires, flinched upon being bitten, this observation being made by the senior author. Examining some of the recent studies of Dunn it appears that the younger bats are not so expert in effecting their bites and that experimenters Ruthven, A. G. 1922. Misc. Publ. Mus. Zool., U. of M. No. 8, p. 10. PLATE V Fig. 4 (Upper). Spear-nosed Bat, Phyllostomus hastatus panamensis Allen. This is the position assumed by the greater number of bats in traversing horizontal surfaces. Such bats, when seeking to fly, usually ascend a vertical surface, in inverted position, before taking wing. Fig. 5 (Center). Vampire Bat, Desmodus rotundus murinus Wagner. The quadrupedal gait, with body well elevated from the ground, illustrates how the animal lightly stalks and manoeu- vers over the body of its victim. Fig. 6 (Lower). The position of the thumbs, turned outward and serving as padded feet on the wing stalks, illustrates the facility of the stalking gait. From this position, a Vampire Bat can leap upward and take flight. 1935] Ditmars & Greenhall: The Vampire Bat 69 testing the bites of various specimens upon the human forearm occasionally found bats that dealt decidedly painful bites. There is controversy as to whether the bat carries an anti- coagulant in its saliva, introducing it into the freshly-made wound to keep it bleeding, or whether a specialized type of bite induces prolonged bleeding. Bier of the Biological Society of Sao Paulo, Brazil, experimented with extracts of the salivary glands of Desmodus and also with a species of Phyllostomus^^- (P. hastatus) . His published results indicate that Desmodus possessed anticoagulating properties in its saliva, while the non- hematophagus baPs saliva was completely inactive. In October, 1934, Dr. Barry King of Columbia University began experiments with the four Vampire Bats now in the care of the senior author. This work points to an anticoagulant in the salivary secretion of Desmodus, but time and checking will be required to define its activity. Although mosquitos, blood-sucking flies, ticks and lice have long been known to harbor disease organisms in their saliva, the Vampire Bat only recently came under suspicion. The work of Clark and Dunn at the Gorgas Memorial Laboratory has con- firmed the guilt of the bat.13 These investigators demonstrated that Desmodus rotundus murinus is a vector of the equine disease '‘murrina,” prevalent in Panama and produced by Trypanosoma hippicum Darling. It is interesting to note that the disease also proved to be fatal to all of the bats carrying the trypanosome, although they live. long enough after becoming infected to pro- duce grave damage. While there have been statements that vampires appeared to be unable to endure a fast of not much more than 36 hours, Urich states that vampires can fast as long as three days. The senior author fasted four specimens for 48 hours, seemingly without harm. As early as 1865 Huxleyi^ made a detailed study of the stomach of Desmodus and found that its extremely intestiform shape was apparently specialized for rapid assimilation. This, together with the specialized dentition and peculiar type of Bier O. G. 1932. C. R. Soc. Biol. Paris. Vol. 110, pp. 130-131. Dunn. Ij. H. 1932. Journal Preventive Medicine. Vol. 6, No. 5, pp. 415-424. Clark and Dunn. 1933. Am. Jour. Trop. Medicine. Vol. 13, No. 3, pp. 274-281. Huxley, T. H. 1865. Proc. Zool. Soc. London, pp. 386-390. 70 Zoologica: N, Y. Zoological Society [XIX; 2 quadrupedal gait, make the vampire especially adapted to its sanguinary mode of living. Tradition: The term Vampire originated long before civi- lized man's knowledge of a so-called blood-sucking bat. In later years the discovery of a sanguineous bat appears to have inspired elaboration of the tradition. This history has been traced by the junior author through approximately 200 titles, a partial bibli- ography of which appears at the end of the article. Surmise, theories and observations of various naturalists in building up the history of the Vampire Bat have also been searched, as well as scientific nomenclature. The term Vampire is apparently of Slavonic origin and was first applied in eastern Europe to alleged blood-sucking, super- natural beings and persons abnormally endowed with hema- toposia. The preternatural Vampire was supposed to be the soul of a dead person which left the interred body at night, in one of many forms, to suck the blood of sleeping persons and some- times animals. Of the numerous shapes thought to be assumed by the Vampire, it is of interest to note that in early history the bat form was not mentioned. It later found its way into the legends, as brought out in Bram Stoker's “Dracula.” The pre- ferred form seems to have been the werewolf, dog, cat, horse, birds of various kinds, snakes and even inanimate things such as straw and white flame. Superstition about blood-sucking forms has been widespread and of dateless origin. It was known in many ancient cultures of the Old World. The tendency of blood-sucking creatures to produce legends is to be noted among the Mayans even be- fore the arrival of Cortez in the early Sixteenth century brought contact with Old World superstitions. In this case of New World exaggeration, there was a basis for it — ^the actual presence of sanguineous bats. Here was reverence of a blood-sucking bat god, 15 undoubtedly founded on the existence of a sanguineous bat common in most of the Mayan areas of habitation. Then again, the return of Cortez's followers to Europe with tales of blood-sucking bats, founded on acquired knowledge of an actual blood-drinking creature, appears to have strengthened the super- stitions of Europe. From chronological examination of the old Mythologry of All Races. 1930. Vol. XI, p. 177. Archeol. Inst. Amer. PLATE VI Fig. 7 (Upper). Vampire Bat, Desmodus rotundas murinus Wagner. The beginning of a nightly meal of defibrinated blood. The contents of the dish was consumed in slightly more than 20 minutes, being lapped up by the tongue. Fig 8 (Center). Completion of the meal, showing spherical distension of the body. The action of the tongue is shown. Fig. 9 (Lower). Preparing to leap upward for flight; this is preceded by a slight bending of the limbs. i i 1: I I I t % } ? I i i i 5 1 I i 1935] Ditmars & Greenhall: The Vampire Bat 71 literature, it seems that it was not long after the return of the Spaniards that allegations appeared about blood-sucking habits of the bats of Europe, where no sanguivorous bats have ever occurred. After the return of the early explorers from the New World tropics, a ‘Wampire” epidemic broke out in Europe about 1730,if5 especially in the Slavonic countries. All sorts of works, scien- tific and philosophical, related incidents and cases of those un- fortunate people who became afflicted with vampirism and sucked the blood of men and animals. Up to this time, although bats were associated with supernatural happenings, they were not associated with vampirism. Slowly the tradition of vampir- ism added the bat form to its list and later fiction, founded on vampirism, included allusion to bat wings, bat-like movements and the actual bat form as portrayed in the really classic “Dracula.”i7 Early naturalists visiting Central and South America ar- rived there with definite knowledge of a bat of some sort that fed upon blood. The exact bat was unknown. This led to various inferences. The ugliest and largest bats were thought to be the vampire. Actual observations of these early travellers, thrilled by the strange New World tropics, appear to be in the minority as compared to the acceptance of tales they heard, or their deductions from dead specimens. Hence, we find in the old records weird descriptions of vampires hovering over their sleep- ing victims, fanning them with their wings to induce profound sleep, inserting long tongues into a vein and sucking the man or beast dry. Taxonomy: The actual vampire was accorded a place in the formal, binomial lists before it was individually known to be a sanguineous bat. Prince Maximilian Wied separated the vam- pire from the genus Phyllostoma of E. Geoff roy and placed it in a separate genus, Desmodus, with the specific name of rufus in 1826.18 This application of a new specific name in the removal of the vampire from Phyllostoma failed to hold, as Geoffroy had already established the species as P. rotundum in I8IO.19 The Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1910, 11th edit., Vol. 27, pp. 876-877, Stoker. Bram. 1929. Dracula. Doubleday. Doran & Co.. Inc., Garden City. N. Y. Wied. M. 1826. Beitrage zur Naturgesh. Brazilien, Vol. 2. p. 231. Geoffroy, E. 1810. Ann. Mus. Hist. Nat., p. 181. 72 Zoologica: N. Y, Zoological Society [XIX; 2 generic separation, however, was clearly indicated by the spe- cialized dentition, although Desmodus still retained a place in the family of Spear-nosed Bats, Phyllostomidae. Waterhouse in 1839 referred to the vampire as Desmodus d' orhignyi.^o Wagner in 1840 proposed the specific name of murinus.^^ To bring the taxonomy to date we quote from Osgood, 1912 122 “In selecting specimens of Desmodus for comparison, I find a noticeable difference in size between examples of typical D. rotundus from Paraguay and specimens from Mexico and Central America. In typical rotundus,- the forearm measures 60-64 mm., while in Mexican and Guatemalan specimens the maximum is 55. A corresponding difference is shown by the skulls. It would seem advisable, therefore, to recognize a north- ern subspecies, using Wagner's name murinus (Suppl. Schreb. Saugeth., I, p. 377, 1840) which would stand as Desmodus ro- tundus murinus Wagner." It now appears that the only known sanguineous bats of the world occur in the American tropics, forming the family Des- modontidae. This is composed of three genera, each with a single species, as follows: Desmodus rotundus rotundus Geoffroy; D, rotundus murinus Wagner; Diphylla centralis Thomas, and Diaemus youngi ( Jentink) . The habits of Diaemus youngi, appearing to be a rare species, have not as yet been authentically noted. The dentition, however, points to it being of similar habits to the two former sanguineous species. -“Waterhouse, G. R. 1839-42. Voyage of the Beagle, Mammalia, pp. 1-3. Wagner. 1840. Schreber’s Saiigthiere, Suppl., Vol. I, p. 377. -- Osgood, W. H. 1912. Field Mus. Nat. Hist., pnbl. 155, Zool. Ser., Vol. 10, p. 63. PLATE VII Figs. 10 and 11 . Positions assumed by the Vampire Bat, Desmodus rotundas murinus Wagner, in clinging to an animal with thick pelage. The claws of the hind feet grasp the hairs of the victim’s body and enable the bat to move nimbly over vertical surfaces. 1935] Ditmars & Greenhall: The Vampire Bat 73 BIBLIOGRAPHY Allen, H. 1893. A Monograph of the Bats of North America. Bull. U. S. Nat. Mus., No. 43, pp. ix + 1-198, pis. 38. Allen, H. 1896. Notes on the Vampire Bat (Diphylla ecaudata) , with Spe- cial Reference to its Relationships with Desmodus rufus. Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., Vol. 18, No. 1099, pp. 769-777. figs. 10. Anthony, H. E. 1925. The Bat. Natural History, Vol. 25, No. 6, pp. 560-570, figs. 3. Beebe, W. 1916. Some Interesting Pictures from the Tropical Research Station in British Guiana. Bull. N. Y. Zool. Soc., Vol. 19, No. 5, p. 1400. Beebe, W. 1925. Edge of the Jungle. Garden City Publishing Co., New York. Bier, 0. G. 1932. Action Anticoagulante et Fibrinolytique de L’extrait des Glandes Salivaires d’une Chauvesouris Hematophage {Desmodus rufus). C. R. Soc. Biol. Paris, Vol. 110, pp. 129-131. Biologia Centrali-Americana. 1879-1882. Mammalia by Edward R. Alston, pp. XX + 1-220, pis. 22. Buffon, G. L. 1857 (1707-1788). Buffon’s Natural History of Man, the Globe and of Quadrupeds. Leavitt and Allen, New York. Cabrera, A. L. 1903. Catalogo Descriptive de los Quiropteros Chilenos. Revista Chilena de Hist. Nat., Vol. 7, pp. 278-308, figs. 14. Campbell, C. 1931. Protection Against Vampire Bats. Journ. Mammalogy, Vol. 12, pp. 312-313. Clark, H. C. and Dunn, L. H. 1932. Experimental Studies on Chagas' Dis- ease in Panama. Amer. Journ. Trop. Med., Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 49-77. January. Clark, H. C. and Dunn, L. H. 1933. Animal Susceptibility to Trypanosoma Hippicum, the Equine Trypanosome of Panama, with Special Reference to Cattle as an Unharmed Host and Probable Reservoir of Importance. Amer. Journ. Trop. Med., Vol. 13, No. 3, pp. 273-281, fig. 1. May. Cuvier, B. 1831. Animal Kingdom. 4 vols. G. & C. & H. Carville, New York. Darwin, C. 1890. Journal of Researches into the Natural History and Geology of the Countries Visited During the Voyage Round the World of H. M. S. “Beagle.” John Murray, London. D'Azara, F. 1801. Essais sur L’Histoire Naturelle des Quadrupeds de la Province du Paraguay. Vol. 2. Pougens, Paris. Dobson, G. E. 1878. Catalogue of the Chiroptera in the British Museum. Taylor and Francis, London. Duges, A. 1906. Apuntes para una Monografia de Desmodus rufus, Wied. Mem. Soc. Ant. Alzate, Mexico, Vol. 24, pp. 65-72, pis. 3. Duges, A. 1911. El Vampiro de Tierra Caliente. La Naturaleza Mexico, Ser. 3, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 1-4. 74 Zoologica: N, Y. Zoological Society [XIX; 2 Dunn, L. H. 1932. Susceptibility of Bats to Infection with the Horse Try- panosome, Trypanosoma Hippicum Darling, in Panama. Journ. Prev. Med., Vol. 6, No. 3, pp. 155-160. May. Dunn, L. H. 1932. Experiments in the Transmission of Trypanosoma Hip- picum Darling with the Vampire Bat, Desmodus rotundus murinus Wagner, as a Vector in Panama. Journ. Prev. Med., Vol. 6, No. 5, pp. 415-424. September. Dunn, L. H. 1933. Observations on the Carnivorous Habits of the Spear- Nosed Bat, Phyllostomus hastatus panamensis Allen, in Panama. Journ. Mammalogy, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp. 188-199. Eaves, A. 0. 1904. Modern Vampirism. Talisman Publishing Co., Harro- gate, England. Elliot, D. C. 1904. The Land and Sea Mammals of Middle America and the West Indies. Field Mus. Zool. Ser., Vol. 4, Pt. 2, pp. 441-850, pis. 42-67, figs. 59-142. Encyclopaedia Britannica. 1910-1911. Eleventh Edition, Vol. 27, pp. 876- Encyclopaedia Britannica. 1929. Fourteenth Edition, Vol. 22, p. 965. ;■ Gadow, H. 1908. Through Southern Mexico. Witherby & Co., London. J Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire. 1834. Histoire Naturelle des Mammiferes. DeJust ^ Rouvier et E. Le Bouvier, Paris. j Gervais, P. 1854. Histoire Naturelle des Mammiferes. L. Curmer, Paris. Gleadow, F. 1907. Bats Feeding on Birds. Journ. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., ; Vol. 17, p. 1022. f Goeldi, E. A. 1893. Os Mammiferos do Brasil. Monographias Brasileiras, | Alves and Co., Rio de Janeiro. ji Goeldi, E. A. 1903. Collecgao de Mammiferos no Museu do Para (1894- ; 1903). Boletim do Museu Goeldi (Museu Paraense), Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 1-85, illus. Goldi, E. A. 1887. Fressen die Phyllostoma Arten (Vampire) Friichte oder Nicht? Zool. Gart., Vol. 28, pp. 163-172. Goldman, E. A. 1920. Mammals of Panama. Smith. Misc. Coll., Vol. 69, pp. 1-309, pis. Goodwin, G. G. 1928. Flying Shadows of the Night. Natural History, Vol. 28, pp. 515-522, figs. 12. Gray, J. E. 1866. Revision of the Genera of the Phyllostomidae. Proc. Zool. Soc. London, pp. 111-118. Green, E. E. 1911. On Megaderma lyra, its Habits and Parasites. Spolia Zeylanica, Vol. 7, p. 216. Hensel, R. 1869. Beitrage zur Kenntniss der Thierwelt Brasiliens. Zool. Gart., Vol. 10, pp. 135-140. Herrera, A. L. 1911 Nota Adicional. La Naturaleza Mexico, Ser. 3, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 4-6, pi. 1. 1935] Ditmars & Greenhall: The Vampire Bat 75 Huxley, T. H. 1865. On the Structure of the Stomach in Desmodus Rufus. Proc. Zool. Soc. London, pp. 386-390, fig:. 1. Jentink, L. A. 1893. Desmodus youngii, n. sp. Notes Leyden Mus., Vol. 15, W. Indies, pp. 278-283. Lima, J. L. 1926. Os Morcegos do Collecgao do Museu Paulista. Rev. Mus. Sao Paulo, Vol. 14, pp. 43-127. Lutz, O. 1921. Zoologia. Koehler and Volckmar A.-G., Leipzig, Germany. Lydekker, R. 1893. The Royal Natural History. 6 vols. Frederick Warne and Co., London. Lyon, M. W. 1931. The Vampire Bat. Science, Vol. 73, No. 1883, pp. 124- 125. MacCulloch, C. J. A. 1932. The Mythology of All Races. 13 vols. Arche- logical Institute of America. Marshall Jones Co., Boston. McGovern, W. M. 1927. Jungle Paths and Inca Ruins. Grosset and Dunlap, New York. Miller, G. S., Jr. 1896. Note on the Milk Dentition of Desmodus. Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington, Vol. 10, pp. 113-114, figs. 2. Miller, G. S., Jr. 1906. Twelve New Genera of Bats. Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington, Vol. 19, pp. 83-86. Miller, G. S., Jr. 1907. The Families and Genera of Bats. Bull. Nat. Mus., No. 57, pp. xvii -|- 1-282, pis. 14. Miller, G. S., Jr. 1912. A Small Collection of Bats from Panama. Proc. Nat. Mus., Vol. 42, No. 1882, pp. 21-26. Miller, G. S., Jr. 1924. List of North American Recent Mammals — 1923 Bull. Smith. Inst., U. S. Nat. Mus., No. 128, pp. xvi -f 1-673. New International Encyclopaedia. 1927. Second Edition, Vol. 23, Dodd, Mead and Co., New York. Osgood, W. H. 1912. Mammals from Western Venezuela and Eastern Colombia. Field Mus. Nat. Hist. Zool. Series, Publ. 155, Vol. 10, No. 5, pp. 32-66, pi. 1. Oxford Dictionary. 1928. Vol. 10, Pt. 2, V-Z p. 33, Clarendon Press, Ox- ford, England. Pennant, T. 1771. Synopsis of Quadrupeds. Chester, London. Peters, W. 1865. tiber die Zuden Vampyri Gehorigen Flederthiere und liber die Naturliche Stellung der Gattung Antrozous. Monatsb. (K. Preuss.) Akad. Wiss. Berlin, pp. 503-524. Primrose, A. M. 1907. Bats Feeding on Small Birds. Journ. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., Vol. 17, No. 4, pp. 1021-1022. Quelch, J. J. 1892. The Bats of British Guiana. Timehri, Vol. 6, New Series, pp. 91-109. Roosevelt, T. 1919. Through the Brazilian Wilderness. Charles Scribners’ Sons, New York. Ruthven, A. G. 1922. The Amphibians and Reptiles of the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta, Colombia. Misc. Publ. Mus. Zool., U. of M., No. 8, pp. 1-69, illus. 22, 1 map. Zoologica: N, Y, Zoological Society 76 [XIX; 2 Schreber, J. C. 1840. Die Saugthiere in Abbildungen Nach der Natur mit Beschreibungen. Supp. I. Shaw, G. 1800. General Zoology or Systematic Natural History. Mam- malia, Vol. 1. G. Kearsley, London. Summers, M. 1928. The Vampire: His Kith and Kin. Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner and Co., Ltd., London. Stoker, B. 1929. (1897). Dracula. Doubleday Doran and Co., Inc., Gar- den City, New York. Swainson, W. 1835. On the Natural History and Classification of Quad- rupeds. Longman, Rees, Orme, Brown, Green and Longman, London. Tate, G. H. H. 1931. Random Observations on Habits of South American Mammals. Journ. Mamm., Vol. 12, No. 3, pp. 248-256. Toldt, K., Jr. 1926. Die Chiropterenausbeute. (Zool. Exp. nach Brasil 1903). Denkschr. Akad. Wiss. Wien, Vol. 76, pp. 43-53, figs. 3. Townsend, C. H. 1927. The Bite of the Vampire. N. Y. Zool. Soc. Bull., Vol. 30, No. 3, pp. 64-66. Up De Graff, F. W. 1923. Head Hunters of the Amazon. Garden City Publishing Co., Inc., Garden City, New York. Waterhouse, G. R. 1839-1842. The Zoology of the Voyage of H. M. S. “Beagle.” Pt. II, Mammalia. Smith, Elder and Co., London. Wied, M. 1826. Mammalia Saugtheire. Beitrage zur Naturgeschichte von Brasilien. Vol. 2, pp. 1-620. Wood, J. G. 1869. Illustrated Natural History. George Routledge and Sons, London and New York. Wright, D. 1914. Vampires and Vampirism. William Rider and Son, Ltd., London. Second Edition, 1924. j^elu gorfe Zoological ^ocietp Scientific Publications A completely classified list of the subjects included in each of the finished volumes of ZOOLOGICA, and all other publications of the New York Zoological Society will be furnished on application. Address H. R. MITCHELL Manager y Zoological Park 185th St. and Southern Boulevard, New York City I ' JP'P’yf V ^ H*'' Ii/.* . ! /'X* A ’ / Wjf ■'■ v;t';;vi ,• 'I i' t '/ ‘ <, . '■ -'' ■ ''.(p V'','’ '- 'PPpPPip :}J'PP ' ■ , 'Pp'SP'^0M0lW§ s / ' ^ W, . , ,, , mf‘‘7pm':Mr; *®J|:: ZOOLOGICA SCIENTIFIC CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE NEW YORK ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY VOLUME XIX. NUMBER 3 A SECOND LIST OF ANTILLEAN REPTILES AND AMPHIBIANS Thomas Barbour Director, Museum of Comparative Zoology Cambridge, Massachusetts PUBLISHED BY THE SOCIETY THE ZOOLOGICAL PARK, NEW YORK June 6, 1935 fork Znolngtral ^orirtg General Office: 101 Park Avenue, New York City President^ Madison Grant Honorary President^ Henry Fairfield Osborn Vice-Presidents, W. Redmond Cross and Kermit Roosevelt Chairman, Executive Committee, Madison Grant Treasurer, Cornelius R. Agnew Secretary, Henry Fairfield Osborn, Jr. Poatb of Wxn^tttsi Class ot 1936 Madison Grant, Lewis R. Morris, Archer M. Huntington, George D, Pratt,* Cornelius R. Agnew, Harrison Williams, Marshall Field, Ogden L. Mills, Vincent Astor, C. Suydam Cutting, Childs Frick, Alfred Ely Class of 1937 George Bird Grinnell, Frederic C. Walcott, George C. Clark, W. Redmond Cross, Henry Fairfield Osborn, Jr., George Gordon Battle, Bayard Dominick, Anson W. Hard, Robert Gordon McKay, Kermit Roosevelt, Grafton H. Pyne, John M. Schiff Class of 1938 Henry Fairfield Osborn, Robert S. Brewster, Edward S. Harkness, Edwin Thorne, Irving K. Taylor, Harry Payne Bingham, Landon K. Thorne, J. Watson Webb, Oliver D. Filley, De Forest Grant, H. de B. Parsons,* George F. Baker S>tientific S>taS W. Reid Blair, Director of the Zoological Park William T. Hornaday, Director Emeritus Charles H. Townsend, Director of the Aquarium C. M. Breder, Jr., Assistant Director, Aquarium Raymond L. Ditmars, Curator of Mammals and Reptiles William Beebe, Honorary Curator of Birds and Director of Department of Tropical Research Lee S. Crandall, Curator of Birds H. C. Raven, Prosector Charles V. Noback, Veterinarian Claude W. Leister, AssH to the Director and Curator, Educational Activities Edward R. Osterndorff, Photographer William Bridges, Editor and Curator of Publications CbUorial Committee Madison Grant, Chairman W. Reid Blair Charles H. Townsend William Beebe George Bird Grinnell *Deceased William Bridges Zoological Vol. XIX, No. 3 A SECOND LIST OF ANTILLEAN REPTILES AND AMPHIBIANS Thomas Barbour Director, Museum of Comparative Zoology Cambridge, Massachusetts Introduction In December, 1930, I published a List of the Antillean Reptiles and Amphibians in Zoologica. Since that time such a host of ad- ditional discoveries has been made that the list is now completely out of date. I have, therefore, prepared a new one since I believe that the usefulness of these lists is pretty well shown by the number of people who write me asking for copies. For an account of the dispersal of the destructive mongoose and its effect on the status of Antillean reptiles cf. Barbour, ''Some Faunistic Changes in the Lesser Antilles,'' Proc. New England Zool. Club, January 10, 1930, Vol. 11, pp. 73-85. The Antilles as considered faunistically comprise the West In- dian Islands, except Trinidad, Tobago and the islands off the coast of South and Central America. I wish most particularly to thank my friends Messrs. Arthur Loveridge and Benjamin Shreve of the Department of Reptiles and Amphibians of the Museum of Comparative Zoology for constant advice concerning many knotty problems. 77 78 Zoologica: N. Y. Zoological Society [XIX; 3 SYSTEMATIC TABLE OF CONTENTS A. Class— AMPHIBIA Order— SALIENTIA Family— HYLIDAE Hyla septentrionalis Boulenger 89 Hyla dominicensis (Tschudi) 89 Hyla brunnea Gosse 89 Hyla vasta Cope 89 Hyla lichenata (Gosse) 89 Hyla pulchrilineata Cope 89 Hyla wilder! Dunn 89 Hyla marianae Dunn 90 Hyla heilprini Noble 90 Hyla squirrella Latreille 90 Hyld rubra Daudin 90 Family— BUFONIDAE Bufo longinasus Stejneger 90 Bufo dunni Barbour 90 Bufo ramsdeni Barbour 90 Bufo peltacephalus Tschudi 90 Bufo empusus (Cope) 91 Bufo gutturosus Latreille 91 Bufo lemur Cope 91 Bufo turpis Barbour. 91 Bufo marinis (Linne) 91 Family— LEPTODACTYLIDAE Eleutherodactylus auriculatus (Cope) 91 Eleutherodactylus sonans Dunn 91 Eleutherodactylus auriculatoides Noble 91 Eleutherodactylus portoricensis Schmidt 91 Eleutherodactylus cooki Grant 92 Eleutherodactylus audanti Cochran 92 Eleutherodactylus wetmorei Cochran 92 Eleutherodactylus armstrongi Noble & Hassler 92 Eleutherodactylus jamaicensis Barbour 92 Eleutherodactylus weinlandi Barbour 92 Eleutherodactylus richmondi Stejneger 92 Eleutherodactylus lentus Cope 92 Eleutherodactylus glandulifer Cochran 92 Eleutherodactylus schmidti Noble 93 Eleutherodactylus inoptatus (Barbour) 93 Eleutherodactylus darlingtoni Cochran 93 1935] Barbour: 2nd List, Antillean Reptiles and Amphibians 79 Eleutherodactylus ruthae Noble 93 Eleutherodactylus urichii (Boettger) . 93 Eleutherodactylus martinicensis (Tschudi) 93 Eleutherodactylus brittoni Schmidt 93 Eleutherodactylus abbotti Cochran 93 Eleutherodactylus bakeri Cochran 94 Eleutherodactylus montanus Schmidt 94 Eleutherodactylus pictissimus Cochran 94 Eleutherodactylus femur-laevis Cochran 94 Eleutherodactylus minutus Noble 94 Eleutherodactylus rufifemoralis Noble & Hassler 94 Eleutherodactylus orcutti Dunn 94 Eleutherodactylus cunctator Dunn 94 Eleutherodactylus nubicola Dunn 94 Eleutherodactylus luteolus (Gosse) 94 Eleutherodactylus gossei Dunn 95 Eleutherodactylus pantoni Dunn 95 Eleutherodactylus junori Dunn 95 Eleutherodactylus cundalli Dunn 95 Eleutherodactylus grabbami Dunn 95 Eleutherodactylus varleyi Dunn r 95 Eleutherodactylus atkinsi Dunn 95 Eleutherodactylus varians (Gundlach & Peters) 95 Eleutherodactylus eileenae Dunn 95 Eleutherodactylus dimidiatus (Cope) 95 Eleutherodactylus emiliae Dunn 95 Eleutherodactylus pinarensis Dunn 96 Eleutherodactylus greyi Dunn 96 Eleutherodactylus brevipalmatus Schmidt 96 Eleutherodactylus sierrae-maestrae Schmidt 96 Eleutherodactylus ricordii (Dumeril & Bibron) 96 Eleutherodactylus cuneatus (Cope) 96 Eleutherodactylus gundlachii Schmidt 96 Eleutherodactylus casparii Dunn 96 Eleutherodactylus gryllus Schmidt 96 Eleutherodactylus cochranae Grant 96 Eleutherodactylus locustus Schmidt 97 Eleutherodactylus cramptoni Schmidt 97 Eleutherodactylus antillensis (Reinhardt & Liitken) 97 Eleutherodactylus wrightmanae Schmidt 97 Eleutherodactylus unicolor Stejneger 97 Eleutherodactylus monensis (Meerwarth) 97 Eleutherodactylus flavescens Noble 97 Eleutherodactylus karlschmidti Grant 97 Leptodactylus fallax Muller 97 Leptodactylus dominicensis Cochran 97 Leptodactylus albilabris (Gunther) 98 80 Zoologica: N. Y. Zoological Society [XIX; 3 Leptodactylus darlingtoni Cochran 98 Leptodactylus validus Carman 98 Family— BRACHYCEPHALIDAE Phyllobates limbatus Cope 98 Class— REPTILIA Oy^qv—SQUAMATA Suborder — SA URIA Family— GEKKONIDAE Gymnodactylus fasciatus Dumeril & Bibron 98 Gonatodes albogularis (Dumeril & Bibron) 99 Gonatodes notatus (Reinhardt & Liitken) 99 Gonatodes fuscus (Hallowell) 99 Phyllodactylus spatulatus Cope 99 Phyllodactylus martini van Lidth de Jeude 99 Hemidactylus mabouia (Moreau de Jonnes) 99 Hemidactylus brookii Gray 99 Hemidactylus turcicus (Linne) 100 Thecadactylus rapicaudus (Houttuyn) 100 Aristelliger praesignis (Hallowell) 100 Aristelliger lar Cope 100 Aristelliger expectatus Cochran 100 Aristelliger cochranae Grant 100 Aristelliger barbouri (Noble & Klingel) 100 Tarentola cubana Gundlach & Peters 100 Sphaerodactylus roosevelti Grant . . 101 Sphaerodactylus decoratus Garman 101 Sphaerodactylus stejnegeri Cochran 101 Sphaerodactylus gibbus Barbour 101 Sphaerodactylus torrei Barbour 101 Sphaerodactylus cinereus Wagler 101 Sphaerodactylus mariguanae Cochran 101 Sphaerodactylus oxyrrhinus Gosse 101 Sphaerodactylus armstrongi Noble & Hassler 101 Sphaerodactylus difficilis Barbour 101 Sphaerodactylus altavelensis Noble & Hassler. 102 Sphaerodactylus notatus Baird 102 Sphaerodactylus macrolepis Gunther 102 Sphaerodactylus danforthi Grant 102 Sphaerodactylus grandisquamis Stejneger. 102 Sphaerodactylus monensis (Meerwarth) 102 Sphaerodactylus townsendi Grant 102 Sphaerodactylus richardsoni Gray 102 Sphaerodactylus becki Schmidt . 102 1935] Barbour: 2nd List, Antillean Reptiles and Amphibians 81 Sphaerodactylus inaguae Noble & Klingel 103 Sphaerodactylus gilvitorques Cope 103 Sphaerodactylus nigropunctatus Gray 103 Sphaerodactylus caicosensis Cochran 103 Sphaerodactylus corticolus Garman 103 Sphaerodactylus festus Barbour 103 Sphaerodactylus goniorhynchus Cope 103 Sphaerodactylus argus Gosse 103 Sphaerodactylus bartschi Cochran 103 Sphaerodactylus argivus Garman. 103 Sphaerodactylus anthracinus Cope 104 Sphaerodactylus copei Steindachner 104 Sphaerodactylus scaber Barbour & Ramsden 104 Sphaerodactylus samanaensis Cochran 104 Sphaerodactylus fantasticus Dumeril & Bibron 104 Sphaerodactylus pictus Garman 104 Sphaerodactylus sputator (Sparrman) 104 Sphaerodactylus elegantulus Barbour 104 Sphaerodactylus microlepis Reinhardt & Liitken 104 Sphaerodactylus klauberi Grant 104 Sphaerodactylus vincenti Boulenger 105 Sphaerodactylus nicholsi Grant 105 Sphaerodactylus monilifer Barbour 105 Family— IGUANIDAE Iguana iguana iguana (Linne) 105 Iguana iguana rhinolopha Wiegmann 105 Iguana delicatissima Laurenti 105 Chamaeleolis chamaeleontides (Dumeril & Bibron) 105 Xiphocercus valenciennesii (Dumeril & Bibron) 106 Xiphocercus darlingtoni Cochran 106 Chamaelinorops barbouri Schmidt 106 Chamaelinorops wetmorei Cochran 106 Audantia armouri Cochran 106 Deiroptyx vermiculata (Dumeril & Bibron) 106 Deiroptyx bartschi Cochran 106 Anolis equestris Merrem 106 Anolis curvieri Merrem 107 Anolis roosevelti Grant 107 Anolis ricordii Dumeril & Bibron 107 Anolis garmani Stejneger 107 Anolis porcatus Gray 107 Anolis maynardi Garman 107 Anolis brunneus Cope 107 Anolis smaragdinus Barbour & Shreve 107 Anolis fairchildi Barbour & Shreve 108 Anolis bohorucoensis Noble & Hassler 108 82 Zoologica: N, Y, Zoological Society [XIX; 3 Anolis longiceps Schmidt 108 Anolis chloro-cyanus Dumeril & Bibron 108 Anolis mestrei Barbour & Ramsden 108 Anolis allogus Barbour & Ramsden 108 Anolis ahli Barbour 108 Anolis abatus Ahl 108 Anolis bimaculatus Sparrman 108 Anolis newtonii Gunther 108 Anolis evermanni Stejneger 109 Anolis krugi Peters 109 Anolis acutus Hallo well 109 Anolis wattsi Boulenger 109 Anolis forresti Barbour 109 Anolis gundlachi Peters .... 109 Anolis gingivinus Cope 109 Anolis sabanus Garman 109 Anolis antiquae Barbour 109 Anolis lividus Garman 110 Anolis barbudensis Barbour 110 Anolis asper Garman 110 Anolis leachii Dumeril & Bibron 110 Anolis terrae-altae Barbour 110 Anolis alliaceus Cope 110 Anolis nubilus Garman 110 Anolis griseus Garman 110 Anolis richardii Dumeril & Bibron Ill Anolis rubribarbus Barbour & Ramsden Ill Anolis quadriocellifer Barbour & Ramsden Ill Anolis patricius Barbour Ill Anolis cristatellus cristatellus (Dumeril & Bibron) Ill Anolis cristatellus wileyi Grant Ill Anolis cristatellus cooki Grant Ill Anolis momensis Stejneger Ill Anolis alutaceus Cope HI Anolis spectrum Peters 112 Anolis cyanopleurus Cope 112 Anolis semilineatus Cope 112 Anolis olssoni Schmidt 112 Anolis hendersoni Cochran 112 Anolis pulchellus Dumeril & Bibron 112 Anolis poncensis Stejneger 112 Anolis latirostris Schmidt 112 Anolis stratulus Cope. 113 Anolis coelestinus Cope 113 Anolis dominicensis dominicensis (Reinhardt & Ltitken) 113 Anolis dominicensis caudalis Cochran 113 Anolis dominicensis wetmorei Cochran 113 1935] Barbour: 2nd List, Antillean Reptiles and Amphibians 83 Anolis dominicensis altavelensis Noble & Hassler 113 Anolis dominicensis juliae Cochran 113 Anolis distichus Cope 113 Anolis distichoides Rosen 113 Anolis sagrei Dumeril & Bibron 114 Anolis ordinatus Cope . 114 Anolis luteosignifer Carman 114 Anolis longitibialis Noble 114 Anolis lineatopus Grey 114 Anolis homolechis Boulenger 114 Anolis grey i Barbour 114 Anolis cybotes cybotes (Cope) 114 Anolis cybotes doris (Barbour) 114 Anolis angusticeps Hallo well 115 Anolis oligaspis Cope 115 Anolis isolepis Cope 115 Anolis lucius Dumeril & Bibron . . . 115 Anolis argenteolus Cope 115 Anolis argillaceus Cope 115 Anolis bremeri Barbour 115 Anolis loysiana Cocteau 116 Anolis leucophaeus leucophaeus (Carman) 116 Anolis leucophaeus albipalpebralis (Barbour) 116 Anolis leucophaeus mariguanae Cochran 116 Anolis leucophaeus sularum Barbour & Shreve 116 Anolis speciosus Carman 116 Anolis marmoratus Dumeril & Bibron 116 Anolis roquet LacepMe 116 Anolis luciae Carman 116 Anolis vincentii Carman 117 Anolis gentilis Carman 117 Anolis opalinus Gosse. . 117 Anolis iodurus Gosse 117 Anolis grahami Gray 117 Anolis conspersus Carman 117 Norops ophiolepis (Cope) 117 Cyclura figginsi Barbour 117 Cyclura portoricensis Barbour 117 Cyclura mattea Miller 117 Cyclura pinguis Barbour 118 Cyclura stejnegeri Barbour & Noble 118 Cyclura nigerrima Cope 118 Cyclura cornu ta (Bonnaterre) 118 Cyclura collei Gray 118 Cyclura carinata carinata (Harlan) 118 Cyclura carinata bartschi Cochran 118 Cyclura nuchalis Barbour & Noble 119 84 Zoologica: N. Y. Zoological Society [XIX; 3 Cyclura rileyi Stejneger 119 Cyclura inornata Barbour & Noble 119 Cyclura baeolopha Cope 119 Cyclura caymanensis Barbour & Noble 119 Cyclura macleayi Gray 119 Cyclura ricordii (Dumeril & Bibron) 119 Leiocephalus carinatus carinatus (Gray) 119 Leiocephalus carinatus armouri Barbour & Shreve 120 Leiocephalus carinatus punctatus Cochran 120 Leiocephalus carinatus picinus Barbour & Shreve 120 Leiocephalus carinatus helenae Barbour & Shreve 120 Leiocephalus melanochlorus Cope 120 Leiocephalus schreibersii (Gravenhorst) ; . . . 120 Leiocephalus personatus personatus (Cope) 120 Leiocephalus personatus aureus Cochran 120 Leiocephalus personatus mentalis Cochran 120 Leiocephalus personatus scalaris Cochran 121 Leiocephalus personatus louisae Cochran 121 Leiocephalus eremitus Cope 121 Leiocephalus cubensis Gray 121 Leiocephalus greenwayi Barbour & Shreve 121 Leiocephalus psammodromus Barbour 121 Leiocephalus varius Garman 121 Leiocephalus virescens Stejneger 121 Leiocephalus raviceps Cope 121 Leiocephalus loxogrammus loxogrammus (Cope) 122 Leiocephalus loxogrammus parnelli Barbour & Shreve 122 Leiocephalus macropus Cope 122 Leiocephalus inaguae Cochran 122 Leiocephalus semilineatus Dunn 122 Leiocephalus barahonensis Schmidt 122 Leiocephalus beatanus Noble 122 Leiocephalus vinculum Cochran 122 Hispaniolus pratensis Cochran 122 Family— ANGUIDAE Celestus de la segra (Cocteau) 122 Celestus rugosus Cope 123 Celestus costatus (Cope) 123 Celestus badius Cope 123 Celestus maculatus (Garman) 123 Celestus occiduus (Shaw) 123 Celestus impressus Cope 123 Celestus pleii (Dumeril & Bibron) 123 Sauresia sepoides Gray 123 Wetmorena haetiana Cochran 123 1935] Barbour: 2nd List, Antillean Reptiles and Amphibians 85 Family— XANTUSIIDAE Cricolepis typica (Gundlach & Peters) 124 Family— TEIIDAE Kentropyx intermedius Gray 124 Ameiva aquilina Garman 124 Ameiva fuscata Garman 124 Ameiva cineracea Barbour & Noble 124 Ameiva atrata Garman 124 Ameiva pluvianotata Garman 124 Ameiva erythrops Cope 124 Ameiva griswoldi Barbour 125 Ameiva erythrocephala (Daudin) 125 Ameiva garmani Barbour 125 Ameiva pleii Dumeril & Bibron 125 Ameiva corvina Cope 125 Ameiva polops Cope 125 Ameiva wetmorei Stejneger 125 Ameiva eleanorae Grant & Roosevelt 125 Ameiva maynardi maynardi Garman 125 Ameiva maynardi uniformis Noble & Klingel 126 Ameiva alb oguttat a Boulenger 126 Ameiva birdorum Grant 126 Ameiva exsul Cope 126 Ameiva vittipunctata Cope 126 Ameiva taeniura Cope 126 Ameiva lineolata Dumeril & Bibron 126 Ameiva chrysolaema chrysolaema Cope 126 Ameiva chrysolaema abbotti Noble 126 Ameiva chrysolaema juliae Cochran 127 Ameiva barbouri Cochran 127 Ameiva thoracica Cope 127 Ameiva dorsalis Gray 127 Ameiva auberi Cocteau 127 Ameiva rosamondae Cochran 127 Ameiva beatensis Noble 127 Ameiva navassae Schmidt 127 Scolecosaurus alleni alleni (Barbour) 127 Scolecosaurus alleni parviceps Barbour . . . 128 Gymnophthalmus pleei Bocourt 128 Family— AMPHISBAENIDAE Cadea palirostrata Dickerson 128 Cadea blanoides Stejneger 128 Amphisbaena fenestrata Cope 128 Amphisbaena bakeri Stejneger 128 Amphisbaena caeca Cuvier 128 86 Zoologica: N. Y. Zoological Society [XIX; 3 Amphisbaena manni Barbour 128 Amphisbaena innocens Weinland 128 Amphisbaena cubana Peters 129 Amphisbaena caudalis Cochran 129 Family— SCINCIDAE Mabuya mabouia (Dumeril & Bibron) 129 Mabuya lineolata Noble & Hassler 129 Suborder— OPHIDIA Family— TYPHLOPIDAE Typhlops tenuis Salvin 129 Typhlops rostellatus Stejneger 129 Typhlops richardi Dumeril & Bibron 129 Typhlops pusillus Barbour 130 Typhlops dominicana Stejneger 130 Typhlops platycephalus Dumeril & Bibron 130 Typhlops sulcatus Cope 130 Typhlops jamaicensis (Shaw) i. 130 Typhlops monensis Schmidt 130 Typhlops lumbricalis (Linne) 130 Typhlops granti Buthven & Gaige 130 Family— LEPTOTYPHLOPIDAE Leptotyphlops albifrons (Wagler) 130 Leptotyphlops bilineata (Schlegel) 131 Family — BOIDAE Epicrates angulif er Bibron 131 Epicrates striatus striatus (Fischer) 131 Epicrates striatus strigilatus (Cope) 131 Epicrates striatus chrysogaster (Cope) 131 Epicrates relicquus Barbour & Shreve 131 Epicrates inornatus inornatus (Reinhardt) 131 Epicrates inornatus granti Stull 131 Epicrates fordii fordii (Gunther) 132 Epicrates fordii monensis Zenneck 132 Epicrates subflavus Stejneger 132 Epicrates gracilis (Fischer) 132 Boa cookii grenadensis (Barbour) 132 Boa hortulana Linne 132 Constrictor constrictor orophias (Linne) 132 Tropidophis maculatus maculatus (Bibron) 133 Tropidophis maculatus jamaicensis Stull 133 Tropidophis maculatus haetianus (Cope) 133 Tropidophis pardalis pardalis (Gundlach) 133 Tropidophis pardalis canus (Cope) 133 1935] Barbour: 2nd List, Antillean Reptiles and Amphibians 87 Tropidophis pardalis curtus (Garman) . 133 Tropidophis pardalis androsi Stull 133 Tropidophis pardalis bucculentus (Cope) 133 Tropidophis wrighti Stull 133 Tropidophis melanurus (Schlegel) 134 Tropidophis semicinctus (Gundlacti & Peters) 134 Family— COLUBRIDAE Natrix compressicauda Kennicott 134 Tretanorhinus variabilis Dumeril & Bibron 134 Tretanorhinus insulae-pinorum Barbour 134 Drymobius boddaerti bruesi (Barbour) 134 Uromacer oxyrhynchus Dumeril & Bibron 134 Uromacer frenatus (Gunther) 135 Uromacer wetmorei Cochran 135 Uromacer catesbyi (Schlegel) 135 Uromacer scandax Dunn 135 Uromacer dorsalis Dunn 135 Alsophis anomalus (Peters) 135 Alsophis leucomelas leucomelas (Dumeril & Bibron) 135 Alsophis leucomelas sanctorum (Barbour) 135 Alsophis leucomelas sibonius (Cope) 135 Alsophis leucomelas manselli Parker 135 Alsophis leucomelas antiguae Parker 136 Alsophis sanctae-crucis Cope 136 Alsophis melanichnus Cope 136 Alsophis ater (Gosse) 136 Alsophis rijgersmaei Cope 136 Alsophis variegatus (Schmidt) 136 Alsophis portoricensis (Reinhardt & Liitken) 136 Alsophis anegadae Barbour 136 Alsophis antillensis (Schlegel) 136 Alsophis rufiventris (Dumeril & Bibron) . 137 Alsophis vudii vudii (Cope) 137 Alsophis vudii aterrimus Barbour & Shreve 137 Alsophis vudii raineyi Barbour & Shreve 137 Alsophis vudii utowanae Barbour & Shreve 137 Alsophis fuscicauda Garman 137 Alsophis caymanus Garman 137 Alsophis angulifer (Bibron) 137 Dromicus andreae andreae Reinhardt & Lutken 137 Dromicus andreae nebulatus (Barbour) 138 Dromicus callilaemus Gosse 138 Dromicus juliae Cope 138 Dromicus melanotus (Shaw) 138 Dromicus perfuscus Cope 138 Dromicus mariae (Barbour) 138 88 Zoologica: N. Y. Zoological Society [XIX; 3 Dromicus boulengeri (Barbour) 138 Dromicus cursor (Lacepede) 138 Dromicus anegadae (Barbour) 138 Dromicus exiguus Cope 138 Dromicus stahli (Stejneger) 138 Dromicus alleni (Dunn) 139 Dromicus parvifrons parvifrons (Cope) 139 Dromicus parvifrons niger (Dunn) 139 Dromicus parvifrons protenus (Jan) 139 Dromicus parvifrons lincolni (Cochran) 139 Dromicus parvifrons tortuganus (Dunn) 139 Dromicus parvifrons rosamondae Cochran 139 Hypsirhynchus f erox Gunther 139 Arrhyton taeniatum Gunther 139 Arrhyton vittatum (Gundlach & Peters) 140 Darlingtonia haetiana Cochran 140 Pseudoboa cloelia (Daudin) 140 Pseudoboa neuweidii (Dumeril & Bibron) 140 laltris dorsalis (Gunther) 140 laltris parish! Cochran 140 Family— CROTALIDAE Bothrops atrox (Linne) 140 Order— CHELONIA Family— TESTUDINIDAE Testudo tabulata Walbaum 141 Family— EMYDIDAE Pseudemys ssp 141 Pseudemys felis Barbour 141 Order— LORICATA Family— CROCODYLIDAE Crocodylus rhombifer Cuvier 141 Crocodylus acutus Cuvier 141 Crocodylus intermedius Graves 141 1935] Barbour: 2nd List, Antillean Reptiles and Amphibians 89 Class AMPHIBIA Order SALIENTIA Family HYLIDAE Hyla septentrionalis Boulenger Cuba; also (perhaps accidentally) the Cayman Islands and Northern Bahamas. A common species. Hyla dominicensis (Tschudi) Hispaniola. A common ally of Hyla septentrionalis. Hyla brunnea Gosse Jamaica. The common vicarious representative of H. dominicensis and H. septen- trionalis. Hyla vasta Cope Hispaniola. Formerly little known, now well studied by Noble. Not uncommon in some wet mountainous ravines in San Domingo. Hyla lichenata (Gosse) Jamaica. Probably of the stock of Hyla vasta but well differentiated. This species has been studied by Dunn who finds that it lives in hollow limbs of trees. Its head is modified to close the opening of its retreat. Cf. Bufo empusus and the discussion of phragmotic modifications in am- phibians and reptiles. Barbour, Reptiles and Amphibians, Boston, Houghton Mifflin & Co., 1926, p. 73 et seq. Hyla pulchrilineata Cope Hispaniola. Formerly considered to be related to the Hyla arbor ea series, but errone- ously. It may have Jamaican affinity with Hyla wilderi or it may be anth- octhonously developed from Hyla dominicensis as Dunn suspects. Hyla wilderi Dunn Jamaica. I collected this species commonly in 1909 but did not realize that the specimens were adults of a new species, not young of the common Hyla brunnea. It is found in the “wild pines,” epiphytic bromeliads. 90 Zoologica: N. Y. Zoological Society Hyla marianae Dunn [XIX; 3 Jamaica. Apparently not common anywhere and found in the highlands only. Hyla heilprini Noble Hispaniola. Found by Noble in 1922, among stones in the ravines of mountain torrents in Pacificador Province, San Domingo. Hyla squirrella Latreille Southeastern United States; Stranger’s Cay, Northern Bahamas. Found in the Bahamas in 1903 by Allen, Bryant and Barbour. Accidental, no doubt. Hyla rubra Daudin South America and St. Lucia. Reported years ago, 1891, from St. Lucia where it was doubtless acciden- tally introduced. We have no recent information as to its persistence. Family BUFONIDAE Bufo longinasus Stejneger Western Cuba. Known from the type only, taken during the summer of 1900 on the bank of a stream in the lowlands near El Guama, a ranch near Pinar del Rio city. This species and the two following vicarious forms are not closely related to any existing toad. Many characters, however, suggest an affinity with Bufo quer- cicus. It is possible that all may have descended from some common ancestral type which occurred in what is now Central America. Bufo dunni Barbour Central Cuba. Found abundantly after heavy rains in the mountains between Trinidad and Cienfuegos. Bufo ramsdeni Barbour Eastern Cuba. Found by C. T. Ramsden only. Taken after heavy rains in isolated lo- calities in the mountains about the Guantanamo basin. Bufo peltacephalus Tschudi Cuba. Generally distributed but nowhere abundant. I believe that this species may be a surviving representative of the same stock from which Bufo punctatus Baird & Girard is descended. 1935] Barbour: 2nd List, Antillean Reptiles and Amphibians 91 Bufo empusus (Cope) Cuba. This is the Cuban representative of the Bufo lemur series. It occurs in widely scattered colonies of burrows. I have described its mode of occurrence at some length elsewhere. (Mem. Mus. Comp. Zool. 44, 1914, p. 242). Bufo gutturosus Latreille Hispaniola. A much more common species than its Puerto Rican ally. Bufo lemur Cope Puerto Rico. For forty years after its description but six of these toads were found. Modern collectors have recently secured a larger number. The four toads of this series may be allied to Bufo canaliferus Cope of the mainland of Central America. Bufo turpis Barbour Virgin Gorda. A very rare form. No other toad has ever been found in the Virgin Islands. It is very closely allied to Bufo lemur of Puerto Rico. Bufo marinis (Linne) Jamaica, Bermuda, Barbados, St. Lucia, St. Kitts, Martinique, Nevis and Montserrat, introduced. Native of South and lower Central America. A favorite species for haphazard introduction. Family LEPTODACTYLIDAE Eleutherodactylus auriculatus (Cope) Cuba. Dunn believes that this form is confined to the Guantanamo region. Eleutherodactylus sonans Dunn Cuba. An arboreal form of Central Cuba allied to E, auriculatus of Eastern Cuba. Eleutherodactylus auriculatoides Noble Hispaniola. Found by Noble in bromeliads along the Constanza-Jarabacoa trail, Paso Bajito, San Domingo. Eleutherodactylus portoricensis Schmidt Puerto Rico and Tortola. The representative of E. auriculatoides and E. auriculatus. 92 Zoologica: N. Y, Zoological Society [XIX; 3 Eleutherodactylus cooki Grant Puerto Rico. A well defined species living in the boulder filled stream beds of the Pandura Mountains in S. E. Puerto Rico. Eleutherodactylus audanti Cochran Haiti. Known only from the high La Selle massif. Eleutherodactylus wetmorei Cochran Haiti. Known only from Ponds des Negres, Haiti, where the types were taken from Palm Chat (Dulus) nests. Related to the preceding species. Eleutherodactylus armstrongi Noble & Hassler San Domingo. Related to the two preceding forms and known only from Southern San Domingo. Eleutherodactylus jamaicensis Barbour Jamaica. Taken at Mandeville in 1908, it has since been found in many other parts of the Island. Eleutherodactylus weinlandi Barbour Hispaniola. A lowland species widely distributed in the eastern areas. Eleutherodactylus richmondi Stejneger Puerto Rico. A virgin forest form allied to E. weinlandi of Hispaniola and E. lentus of St. Thomas. Eleutherodactylus lentus Cope St. Thomas and St. Croix. This still seems to be a common species. Its subterranean habits protect it against capture by the mongoose. Eleutherodactylus glandulifer Cochran Haiti. A form recently found by Dr. Darlington on the northeastern foothills of the Massif de La Hotte between 1,000 and 4,000 ft. Not nearly related to any other Antillean species. 1935] Barbour: 2nd List, Antillean Reptiles and Amphibians 93 Eleutherodactylus schmidti Noble Hispaniola. Another of Noble’s interesting discoveries at Paso Bajito. He says it is allied to E. weinlandi of the Dominican Republic and to E. richmondi of Puerto Rico and so on to E. lentus of the Virgin Islands. Eleutherodactylus inoptatus (Barbour) Hispaniola. A large species which barks when handled and which is found in both Haiti and San Domingo. This by far the largest and finest species of the genus was discovered by Dr. W. M. Mann at Diquini, Haiti. It resembles super- ficially E. insignitus from the Sta. Marta Mts. of Colombia. This may be a good case of convergence. Eleutherodactylus darlingtoni Cochran Haiti. Another very distinct form from the high La Selle Range, 5,000-7,000 ft. Eleutherodactylus ruthae Noble Hispaniola. Noble described this species from Samana, R. D., and he considers it allied to E. inoptatus. Eleutherodactylus urichii (Boettger) St. Vincent, Grenada, Trinidad. Mr. Benjamin Shreve tells me that the Grenada and St. Vincent specimens seem to be separated by color characters and may be worthy of a name. Eleutherodactylus martinicensis (Tschudi) Saba, Montserrat, St. Kitts, St. Eustatius, St. Martins, Martinique, Gaude- loupe, Grenada, St. Vincent, Jamaica (introduced near Kingston about 1890). This little frog is so easily carried about that its true original distribution will never be known. Eleutherodactylus brittoni Schmidt Puerto Rico. Another from the forest on El Yunque. Eleutherodactylus abbotti Cochran Hispaniola. Said to be a very common species throughout San Domingo. 94 Zoologica: AT. Y. Zoological Society Eleutherodactylus bakeri Cochran [XIX; 3 Haiti. Another of Dr. Darlington’s recent finds from Mt. La Hotte, 5,000- 7,800 ft. Eleutherodactylus montanus Schmidt Hispaniola. A species from the Cibao Mountains. Eleutherodactylus pictissimus Cochran Haiti. Another new form from Mt. La Hotte, 3,000 ft. Eleutherodactylus femur-laevis Cochran Haiti. Another form just found and known only from the type locality, Morne La Hotte, 4,000 feet. Eleutherodactylus minutus Noble Hispaniola. On ferns in palm thickets on trail near Paso Bajito, San Domingo; fide Noble. Eleutherodactylus rufifemoralis Noble & Hassler San Domingo. Found in the hills near Barahona. Eleutherodactylus orcutti Dunn Jamaica. Another of the recently found and apparently very local forms; from Arntully in St. Thomas Parish. Eleutherodactylus cunctator Dunn Jamaica. Known only from Arntully in St. Thomas Parish. Eleutherodactylus nubicola Dunn Jamaica. Found high in the Blue Mountains, 3,000-5,100 feet. Eleutherodactylus luteolus (Gosse) Jamaica. Common and widely distributed; from Port Antonio to Montego Bay. 1935] Barbour: 2nd List, Antillean Reptiles and Amphibians 95 Eleutherodactylus gossei Dunn Jamaica. Widespread at altitudes of about 1,000 feet. Eleutherodactylus pantoni Dunn Jamaica. The largest Jamaican species. Eleutherodactylus junori Dunn Jamaica. Known only from Spaldings, Clarendon Parish, altitude 2,900 feet. Eleutherodactylus cundalli Dunn Jamaica. A woodland species, as yet but little known. Eleutherodactylus grabhami Dunn Jamaica. A small species with a wide range, as to both area and altitude. Eleutherodactylus varleyi Dunn Cuba. Known from Central and Eastern Cuba and said by Dunn to be allied to E. minutus and E. abbotti of San Domingo. Eleutherodactylus atkinsi Dunn Cuba. A handsome species found throughout the Island. Cuba Eleutherodactylus varians (Gundlach & Peters) Known definitely only from Soledad, near Cienfuegos. Eleutherodactylus eileenae Dunn Cuba. The “Kolin” of western and central Cuba. Eleutherodactylus dimidiatus (Cope) Cuba. A widespread species. Eleutherodactylus emiliae Dunn Cuba. Known only from the Mina Carlota, in the mountains not far from Cuma- nayagua, Sta. Clara Province. 96 Zoologica: N. Y. Zoological Society . [XIX; 3 Eleutherodactylus pinarensis Dunn Cuba and Isle of Pines. Known in Cuba from the Province of Pinar del Rio only. Eleutherodactylus greyi Dunn Cuba. The largest Cuban species, so far known only from the mountains between Cienfuegos and Trinidad. Eleutherodactylus brevipalmatus Schmidt Cuba. A form from the mountains of the province of Oriente. Eleutherodactylus sierrae-maestrae Schmidt Cuba. Another mountain species from eastern Cuba. Eleutherodactylus ricordii (Dumeril & Bibron) Cuba and Bahama Islands; S. Florida. Found in all parts of Cuba and on New Providence, Abaco and Andros Island. It is extending its range in Florida, as I reported some years ago. It has now reached Gainesville. (Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash., 23, 1910, p. 100.) Eleutherodactylus cuneatus (Cope) Cuba and Isle of Pines. Common in western and central Cuba. Eleutherodactylus gundlachii Schmidt Cuba. An eastern mountain form. I originally described this species but used the specific name plicatus, which proved to be preoccupied. Eleutherodactylus casparii Dunn Cuba. Another species of the Trinidad Mountains. Eleutherodactylus gryllus Schmidt Puerto Rico. A minute, highland species. Eleutherodactylus cochranae Grant St. John and Hassel Island. Perhaps akin to the preceding species. Hassel Island is a small Cay near St. Thomas. 1935] Barbour: 2nd List, Antillean Reptiles and Amphibians 97 Eleutherodactylus locustus Schmidt Puerto Rico. Another species from El Yunque forest. Eleutherodactylus cramptoni Schmidt Puerto Rico. A rare species from the mountain forest of El Yunque Peak. Eleutherodactylus antillensis (Reinhardt & Liitken) Puerto Rico, St. Thomas, Tortola, Vieques. A widespread and common species. Eleutherodactylus wrightmanae Schmidt Puerto Rico. A form “probably confined to the coffee belt and the wet forest above it.” Eleutherodactylus unicolor Stejneger Puerto Rico. From El Yunque. Eleutherodactylus monensis (Meerwarth) Mona Island. Eleutherodactylus flavescens Noble Hispaniola. From bushes along streams near La Bracita, found by Noble in 1922. Eleutherodactylus karlschmidti Grant Puerto Rico. Known only from the Luquillo Mountains in eastern Puerto Rico and said not to be very closely related to any other Antillean member of the genus. Leptodactylus fallax Muller Dominica, St. Kitts, Guadeloupe, St. Lucia. The giant “crapaud” has been recently separated specifically from the mainland L. pentadactylus. Now to be found on Dominica only where it is called the “mountain chicken.” Elsewhere it has been exterminated by the mongoose. It may have occurred upon islands other than those recorded above. I am not convinced that it is really very distinct from the mainland species. Leptodactylus dominicensis Cochran Hispaniola. The Dominican representative of L. alhilahris of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. 98 Zoologica: N. Y. Zoological Society [XIX; 3 Leptodactylus albilabris (Gunther) St. Thomas, St. Croix, Tortola, Anegada, Just van Dyke, Puerto Rico, Vieques, Culebra. This common form no doubt occurs on other islets in this general area. Leptodactylus darlingtoni Cochran Haiti. Another of Dr. Darlington’s recent surprises from near La Visite, Morne La Selle, taken at 5,000 to 7,000 feet. Leptodactylus validus Garman St. Vincent, Grenada, Venezuela. There is a great question whether this form is distinct or identical with L. caliginosus from Brazil and just what the relationship may be with L. labialis or L. melanonotus from Central America. Family BRACHYCEPHALIDAE Phyllobates limbatus Cope Cuba. Locally abundant. This species has been separated from the mainland species of this genus, as Sminthillus, on a trivial skeletal character of divergence. It is, however, I now believe, essentially a Phyllobates in all important respects except perhaps in life history. The species of “Sminthillus” described from Peru is quite certainly wholly unrelated to the Cuban form. I believe that we may generally agree that Sminthillus (type limbatus) is a straight synonym of Phyllobates. The Peruvian species in any case required a new name, and I called it Noblella, type N. peruviana (Noble) in the first edition of this check list. Class REPTILIA Order SQUAMATA Suborder SAURIA Family GEKKONIDAE Gymnodactylus fasciatus Dumeril & Bibron Martinique. I know nothing of this species and have often wondered what it is. The type in Paris was said to be from the P14e Collection and taken at Martinique. The Plee Collections have caused endless confusion by having so often er- ronious data as to locality. I suspect that I would have done better to have omitted this species altogether. 1935] Barbour: 2nd Ldst, Antillean Reptiles and Amphibians 99 Gonatodes albogularis (Dumeril & Bibron) Martinique, Curagao. This, another P14e type from “Martinique,” may have come from almost anywhere in the Caribbean basin. Many of the members of this genus are in confusion and await a reviser. Gonatodes notatus (Reinhardt & Liitken) Hispaniola. Apparently a valid species which may be confined to Haiti. It seems to be rare. Gonatodes fuscus (Hallowell) Cuba and Central America. This house lizard is known from the seaports of Santiago, Havana and Mariel, which are in constant schooner communication with Havana. I sus- pect the species was long since accidentally introduced into Cuba. Phyllodactylus spatulatus Cope Barbados. Collected years ago, about 1861, in fact, by Dr. Theodore Gill. I have no recent information as to its status. Phyllodactylus martini Van Lidth de Jeude Venezuela, Curagao, Bonaire, Puerto Rico and Caja de Muertos. Major Grant found three specimens from these two last mentioned islands. Of course, above all other lizards, geckos are distributed without rhyme or reason. This form was first described from Caracas. Grant recorded the species as P. pulcher. Hemidactylus mabouia (Moreau de Jonnes) Cuba, Jamaica, Hispaniola, Vieques, St. Thomas, St. Croix, Just van Dyke, Tortola, Dominica, St. Lucia, St. Vincent, Barbados, Martinique, Grenada and the Grenadines; Northern South America, Trinidad; West Africa from Liberia to Angola, East Africa from Italian Somaliland to the Zambesi. This lizard, one frequenting the street lamp areas of towns and cities, is, I believe, accidentally introduced. It is rare in the Greater Antilles, and in Cuba very local. Hemidactylus brookii Gray Asia; tropical Africa; Cuba, Hispaniola, Puerto Rico. I believe this is another accidental introduction. 100 [XIX; 3 Zoologica: N, Y. Zoological Society % Hemidactylus turcicus (Linne) The Eastern Mediterranean Islands. Introduced to Key West, Cuba, and Yucatan (cf. Hemidactylus exsul Barbour & Cole, Stuart, Copeia, No. 4, 31, Dec. 1934, p. 185). Thecadactylus rapicaudus (Houttuyn) Saba south to Grenada, tropical South and Central America. Nocturnal or crepuscular. Found under bark, behind shutters and in old buildings, also in the forest in crevices of rocks and sometimes under decaying vegetable trash. It is known from almost every single island, all indeed which have been in any sense completely explored. Aristelliger praesignis (Hallowell) Jamaica, Grand Cayman and Cayman Brae. An abundant, if not actually common, species. Aristelliger lar Cope Hispaniola. Apparently rather widely distributed. It has recently been collected in larger numbers than the earlier investigators uncovered. Aristelliger expectatus Cochran Haiti and La Gonave. A small species related to the one on Navassa. Known from Southern Haiti and La Gonave Island. Aristelliger cochranae Grant Navassa Island. Allied to Miss Cochran’s species from Haiti. Aristelliger barbouri (Noble & Klingel) Inagua. Known from Southwest Point, Great Inagua, only. Tarentola cubana Gundlach & Peters Cuba and Bahamas. Shy and retiring in rocky crevices, this species is rarely seen. I suspect it to be widespread in the Bahamas, though I have seen it from Andros and Exuma Islands only. In Cuba it is more common in the northeastern region than else- where. 1935] Barbour: 2nd List, Antillean Reptiles and Amphibians 101 Sphaerodactylus roosevelti Grant Puerto Rico. Said by the describer to be the only species in the genus with keeled scales on the chest. Sphaerodactylus decoratus Garman Bahama Islands. Common on Andros, rare on New Providence. The type came from Rum Cay. Sphaerodactylus stejnegeri Cochran Haiti. A species known from several different parts of the Republic of Haiti. Sphaerodactylus gibbus Barbour Bahama Islands. Known only from the Exuma Cays. Sphaerodactylus torrei Barbour Cuba. Known from the Province of Oriente only. It is not rare. Sphaerodactylus cinereus Wagler Cuba, Navassa, Hispaniola and extreme south Florida. A common form in houses and in woodlands. It passes through a number of color phases during growth and the young and half-grown were once thought to be distinct species and bore specific names, elegans and intermedins. Sphaerodactylus mariguanae Cochran Mariguana Island. This form is said by the describer to be much like the following. Sphaerodactylus oxyrrhinus Gosse Jamaica. A rare form but one widespread through the Island. Sphaerodactylus armstrongi Noble & Hassler San Domingo. Known only from the Province of Barahona. Sphaerodactylus difficilis Barbour Hispaniola. Common and widely distributed. 102 Zoologica: N. Y. Zoological Society [XIX; 3 Sphaerodactylus altavelensis Noble & Hassler Alta Vela Island. Represents the stock of the preceding species on Alta Vela. Sphaerodactylus notatus Baird Florida Keys and extreme southern Florida, Cuba, Isle of Pines and Bahama Islands. A very common house lizard. No doubt often carried about and rapidly extending its range. Sphaerodactylus macrolepis Gunther * Congo Key, Little St. James, St. Croix, Water Island, St. Thomas, St. John, Tortola, Virgin Gorda, Anegada. Widespread and common. Sphaerodactylus danforthi Grant Culebra and Vieques. Representing the preceding species on this Island. Sphaerodactylus grandisquamis Stejneger Puerto Rico. Another representative of this same stock which Grant believes valid and confined to Puerto Rico. Sphaerodactylus monensis (Meerwarth) Mona. Grant believes this species should be held as distinct. Sphaerodactylus townsendi Grant Northeastern Puerto Rico and Caja de Muertos. A form close to S. monensis. Sphaerodactylus richardsoni Gray Jamaica. A fine big form but one which is distinctly rare. Sphaerodactylus becki Schmidt Navassa. I am not sure, judging from the second known specimen recently collected, that this species is really separable from S. scaber of Cuba. 1935] Barbour: 2nd List y Antillean Reptiles and Amphibians 103 Sphaerodactylus inaguae Noble & Klingel Inagua, and Watlings Island. Common in and about Matthewtown. Sphaerodactylus gilvitorques Cope Jamaica. I know nothing of this species. I have never found it; nor has any of our various collectors in Jamaica. The types were taken “during the forties” by Dr. Pennock of Philadelphia. Sphaerodactylus nigropunctatus Gray Cuba. A rare species from Eastern Cuba. Sphaerodactylus caicosensis Cochran The Caicos Islands. Recently described from South Caicos Island. Apparently most like the following. Sphaerodactylus corticolus Garman Bahama Islands. Known from Watlings Island and Rum Cay. No doubt it occurs in many other islands beside these. Sphaerodactylus festus Barbour Martinique. Known from but few specimens but no doubt common. Sphaerodactylus goniorhynchus Cope Jamaica. A very common woodland species. Sphaerodactylus argus Gosse Jamaica. An excessively common species both in houses and out of doors. Pos- sibly introduced casually into Cuba and the Bahamas. Sphaerodactylus bartschi Cochran Little Cayman. A recently described form allied to S. argus of Jamaica. Sphaerodactylus argivus Garman Cayman Brae. A derivative of S. argus of Jamaica. A fairly well defined species. It is apparently known from the type series only. 104 Zoologica: N. Y. Zoological Society Sphaerodactylus anthracinus Cope [XIX; 3 Bahama Islands. Only known from Andros Island. Sphaerodactylus copei Steindachner Hispaniola. A fine, big, rough-scaled species which is rare and apparently confined to Haiti. Sphaerodactylus scaber Barbour & Ramsden Cuba. Found in the hills of central Cuba. Sphaerodactylus samanaensis Cochran San Domingo. Known only from the vicinity of Samana Bay. Sphaerodactylus fantasticus Dumeril & Bibron Guadeloupe. Very abundant. Sphaerodactylus pictus Garman St. Kitts, Nevis. Probably abundant, and possibly a synonym of the following. Sphaerodactylus sputator (Sparrman) St. Eustatius. The types in Stockholm were long the only specimens known but recently the Museum in Cambridge has received many freshly captured specimens. No Sphaerodactyli are as yet known from St. Martin, Saba, Redonda and other small islands in this neighborhood. Sphaerodactylus elegantulus Barbour Antigua. An ally of pictus and sputator. Brilliantly banded when young and less ornamented in adult life — like so many of the curious little beasts. Sphaerodactylus microlepis Reinhardt & Liitken St. Lucia. I know little of the status of this and several others of the Lesser Antillean forms. Sphaerodactylus klauberi Grant Puerto Rico. One of the small series of species with keeled belly scales. 1935] Barbour: 2nd List, Antillean Reptiles and Amphibians 105 Sphaerodactylus vincenti Boulenger St. Vincent. No information available as to present status. Sphaerodactylus nicholsi Grant Puerto Rico. Said to be somewhat similar to the species from St. Vincent. A chance resemblance no doubt. Sphaerodactylus monilifer Barbour Dominica. Probably abundant but I have no real information about this species. Family IGUANIDAE Iguana iguana iguana (Linne) St. Thomas, Water Island, Hassel Island, Tortola, Peter Island, Guana Island, St. John, Saba, Grenada, Tobago, Trinidad, tropical islands of South America from western Panama to Brazil. Dr. Dunn has recently examined all available material of the genus Iguana and this arrangement is based on his conclusions. (Copeia, 1934, p. 1.) Iguana iguana rhinolopha (Wiegmann) ? St. Kitts, ? St. Lucia, Swan Island, lowlands of tropical Central America from Costa Rica northward in rain forest areas to the states of Guerrero and Vera Cruz, Mexico. The Swan Island specimens are unstable and many possess and many lack the nasal spines. The Antillean specimens are probably based on specimens incorrectly labelled as to locality. If there really ever were iguanas on these islands, the mongoose has exterminated them. There is what may be an iguana egg from St. Lucia in the Mus. Comp. Zool. It is so labelled, and it was taken many years ago. Iguana delicatissima Laurenti Anguilla, St. Martins, St. Bartholomew, St. Eustatius, Nevis, Guadeloupe, Les Saintes. This species has been recorded from Swan Island, where it is not now found and from the Caymans where it is either very rare or occasionally brought in by the very widely seafaring people. Chamaeleolis chamaeleonides (Dumeril & Bibron) Cuba. The most peculiar of all the offshoots from the Anoline stock. A rare species and beyond doubt a monotypic genus, in spite of several names applied with the idea of multiplying the forms. 106 Zoologica: N. Y. Zoological Society [XIX; 3 Xiphocercus valenciennesii (Dumeril & Bibron) Jamaica. Not uncommon in woods and fruit plantations. It may be related to Phenacosaurus of Colombia or be simply a chance offshoot from Anolis in Jamaica and Haiti and only fortuitously similar to the South American genus. Xiphocercus darlingtoni Cochran Haiti. A surprising discovery, made in 1935 by Dr. Darlington of Harvard at Roche Croix, Massif de La Hotte, 5,000 ft. Another Jamaican genus in Hispaniola. Chamaelinorops barbouri Schmidt Navassa. Not found during the careful exploration of Clench, Schevill and Rehder during January, 1930. Possibly exterminated by introduced animals. Chamaelinorops wetmorei Cochran Hispaniola. The unique type is from near Miragoane, Haiti. Audantia armouri Cochran Haiti. Recently discovered on the Morne La Selle. It resembles Plica or Leio- cephalus superficially but more probably it represents the stock of the following genus. More recently still found by Dr. Darlington on Morne La Hotte. Deiroptyx vermiculata (Dumeril & Bibron) Cuba. Bank of streams of Pinar del Rio Province, taking refuge in the water and hiding among submerged rocks and stones when pursued. Deiroptyx bartschi Cochran Cuba. Long unrecognized but not rare in western Cuba. Anolis equestris Merrem Cuba and Isle of Pines. The finest and largest species of the genus. Rather uncommon but wide ranging. Less common than its allies, A. garmani of Jamaica and A. ricordii of Hispaniola, and about equally abundant with A. cuvieri of Puerto Rico. These are the “Giant Anoles” of the Antilles and they may be related to the A. in- signis group of Central America. 1935] Barbour: 2nd List, Antillean Reptiles and Amphibians 107 Anolis cuvieri Merrem Puerto Rico, Vieques and Tortola. A rather uncommon member of the series of Giant Anoles.” Anolis roosevelti Grant Culebra. Apparently a very fine and distinct form. Anolis ricordii Dumeril & Bibron Hispaniola. One of the “Giant” series. Found throughout the whole Island and next to A. garmani of Jamaica the most abundant of the tribe. Anolis garmani Stejneger Jamaica. The beautiful great green or barred “Venus Lizard” of Jamaica. A com- mon woodland form, by far the most abundant of the group of the “Giant Anoles.” Anolis porcatus Gray Cuba and Isle of Pines. A very abundant species. The “Chamaeleon” now sold iniquitously by thousands at “the circus.” It has replaced its ally, our southern “Chamaeleon,” A. carolinensis (Voight) in this hateful traffic. Anolis maynardi Garman Grand Cayman. This extraordinary lizard, the most extreme member of the long-headed A. porcatus-carolinensis series, is by no means common. Anolis brunneus Cope Crooked Island, and the neighboring islands, and probably also Watlings Island. A fine series of topotypes defines this beautiful species, long confused for lack of topotypes. Anolis smaragdinus Barbour and Shreve Bahamas. The species which has been called A. porcatus and A. brunneus by recent authors but which is a perfectly distinct species inhabiting the islands of the Great Central Bahama Bank, Andros, New Providence, Eleuthera, Long, etc. The common green anole of the Central Bahamas. 108 [XIX; 3 Zoologica: N. Y. Zoological Society Anolis fairchildi Barbour and Shreve Cay Sal Group, Bahamas. A green anole of the porcatus-principalis-smaragdinus-brunneus series, perfectly distinct and confined to this isolated group of islets. Anolis bohorucoensis Noble & Hassler San Domingo. A fine species apparently confined to the Sierra de Bohoruco, southern San Domingo. Anolis longiceps Schmidt Navassa. Apparently the only species at present to be found in any number on this Island. Anolis chloro-cyanus Dumeril & Bibron Hispaniola. A widespread and not uncommon form. Anolis mestrei Barbour & Ramsden Cuba. A rather rare species of the higher woods in the limestone hills of western Cuba. It belongs with A. ahli and A. allogus. Anolis allogus Barbour & Ramsden Cuba. This fine form has a wide distribution in the mountains of eastern Cuba. Its ally in western Cuba is A. mestrei; in Central Cuba, A. ahli. Anolis ahli Barbour Cuba. Confined to the mountains between Trinidad and Cienfuegos. It is re- lated to A. mestrei and A. allogus. Not uncommon in high damp woods. Anolis abatus Ahl Cuba. This species may be valid; it is more probably a synonym of Anolis mestrei. Anolis bimaculatus Sparrman St. Eustatius, St. Kitts and Nevis. Abundant. A strictly arboreal species. Anolis newtonii Gunther St. Croix. I have never seen this species and know nothing about it. 1935] Barbour: 2nd List, Antillean Reptiles and Amphibians 109 Anolis evermanni Stejneger Puerto Rico. A highland species which may be related to A. leucophaeus of Inagua. An abundant form. Anolis krugi Peters Puerto Rico. A little, well dispersed species belonging to what I call the rupicolous as against the arboreal Lesser Antillean series — viz. A. wattsi, A. sabanus, and allies. Anolis acutus Hallowell St. Croix. This may still be an abundant form. I have just received a fine series. Anolis wattsi Boulenger St. Kitts, Nevis, St. Eustatius and Antigua. A pretty little species found on the outcrops of igneous rock and, insofar as my experience goes, not in trees. It is one of the A. acutus allies. Anolis forresti Barbour Barbuda. Only known from the types but obviously a small rock-inhabiting species most nearly allied to the species standing directly before it. Anolis gundlachi Peters Puerto Rico. Apparently an abundant species. Anolis gingivinus Cope St. Martins, St. Barts, Anguilla and St. Eustatius. Common. A member of the series of small sized Lesser Antillean species. Anolis sabanus Carman Saba. A most remarkably differentiated form, a rock lizard, pure and simple. The males with really leopard-like spotting. It is one of the A. wattsi- A. acutus tribe but very distinct and uniquely marked. Anolis antiquae Barbour Antigua. A beautiful and common arboreal species. 110 Zoologica: N. Y. Zoological Society [XIX; 3 Anolis lividus Garman Montserrat. All the lizards are said still to be common on this Island. Anolis barbudensis Barbour Barbuba. Known from the type only but no doubt common, as are its relatives on Antigua and Nevis. Anolis asper Garman Marie Galante. A bizarre and gorgeous species common on the old mango trees — about the only trees still standing over a large part of this hurricane-stricken isle. Anolis leachii Dumeril & Bibron Guadeloupe. One of the large species. Found abundantly by Noble in 1914, it was rare after the fearful hurricane of Sept. 12, 1928. Anolis terrae-altae Barbour Les Saintes; near Guadeloupe. A fine big species which Noble found abundant in 1914. Anolis alliaceus Cope Dominica. I was surprised in 1929 to find that this species seemed much less con- spicuous and common than its allies on other islands nearby. So much for what may have been a most erroneous conclusion drawn from the visit of a few days only. It is, however, by no means rare. Anolis nubilus Garman Redonda. A beautiful great lizard; one of the finest in the genus. It is known only from the original series. Anolis griseus Garman St. Vincent. This lizard was formerly abundant. It is now rare. It may have been more or less terrestrial and hence have been a prey to the mongoose. In send- ing two to the Museum of Comparative Zoology on December 18, 1934, Dr. J. G. Myers stated that they were locally known as ‘‘Cocoa Bay Lizards” or “Cocoa Toms.” 1935] Barbour: 2nd Ldst, Antillean Reptiles and Amphibians 111 Anolis richardii Dumeril & Bibron Grenada and Tobago. A splendid great lizard; a strict tree-dweller. Anolis rubribarbus Barbour & Ramsden Cuba. Known only from a very few specimens from Puerto Cananova on the north coast of the oriental province. Anolis quadriocellifer Barbour & Ramsden Cuba. Known only from the Cape San Antonio region of extreme western Cuba. Anolis patricius Barbour Cuba. Only known from a series taken by Dr. Ramsden at Mina Piloto, near Sagua de Tanamo, northern coast of Oriente Province. The eastern repre- sentative of A. quadriocellifer . Anolis cristatellus cristatellus (Dumeril & Bibron) Puerto Rico, Vieques, St. Thomas, Anegada, Fallen Jerusalem, Tortola, Virgin Gorda, Guana Island, Peter Island, Water Island and Mosquito Island. A common and handsome species. It has been suggested that a separate genus be established for the fin-tailed species, but as a matter of fact this char- acter appears in various phyla and it may not always be a token of relation- ship. Anolis cristatellus wileyi Grant Culebra. A form differing in color, and apparently constantly, from the typical race and found on Culebra and the surrounding Cays. Anolis cristatellus cooki Grant Southwestern Puerto Rico. A well defined race confined to the desert area about La Brea Point. Anolis monensis Stejneger Mona. The local derivative of A. cristatellus. Apparently, like it, a common species. Anolis alutaceus Cope Cuba and Isle of Pines. Known from all parts of the Island but nowhere abundant. A species of the low scrublands. 112 Zoologica: N. Y. Zoological Society [XIX; 3 Anolis spectrum Peters Cuba. A not uncommon lizard in woodlands during the rainy season. It disap- pears completely during the dry portion of the year. It ties in with one of the A. semilineatus, A. olssoni, A. hendersoni series of Haiti as does also, I think, A. alutaceus and PERHAPS A. cyanopleurus. Anolis cyanopleurus Cope Cuba. A marvelously beautiful species which Dr. Ramsden has rediscovered in the old type locality, the mountains about Guantanamo. I suspect from its habit that it must be terrestrial. It is said to be local and uncommon. Anolis semilineatus Cope Hispaniola. An abundant, cursorial grass-living form. Anolis olssoni Schmidt Hispaniola. Apparently a not uncommon member of the group of slender terrestrial species long confused with A. semilineatus and allied to A. spectrum of Cuba. Anolis hendersoni Cochran Hispaniola. A small terrestrial species mostly, if not wholly, from the western portion of the Island. Anolis pulchellus Dumeril & Bibron Puerto Rico, Vieques, Virgin Gorda, Tortola, Peter Island, Guana Island, Anegada, St. Thomas, St. Croix, Just van Dyke. A common ground-living species. Doubtfully recorded from Haiti. Anolis poncensis Stejneger Puerto Rico. A rare local species. One which is terrestrial and almost Norops-like in habit. Anolis latirostris Schmidt Navassa. Known from the unique type only. Now apparently extinct. Possibly a terrestrial form, hence a prey to the cats left when the lighthouse was made automatic and the keepers were moved away. Most lizards and all snakes have probably gone from Navassa except Anolis lonqiceps which is strictly arboreal. 1935] Barbour: 2nd Ldst, Antillean Reptiles and Amphibians 113 Anolis stratulus Cope Puerto Rico, Vieques, Culebra, St. Thomas, Tortola, Peter Island, Guana Island, Fallen Jerusalem and Just van Dyke. A common lowland species. Anolis coelestinus Cope Hispaniola. I have seen this form from Haiti only and have no recent information to offer. Anolis dominicensis dominicensis (Reinhardt & Llitken) Hispaniola. This species is not uncommon in Haiti but seems to be rare on La Gonave. I secured a small series in 1929 — but in a very dry time. Anolis dominicensis caudalis Cochran La Gonave Island. Representative of a plastic stock on La Gonave. Anolis dominicensis wetmorei Cochran Beata Island. Confined to this island where it seems to be very rare. Beata is now swarming with feral dogs, cats and goats — fauna and flora are suffering as one might expect. Ground lizards with whole tails are now rare^ — as soon the lizards will be also. Anolis dominicensis altavelensis Noble & Hassler Alta Vela Island. A rather poorly defined form. Anolis dominicensis juliae Cochran Isle Vache. A recently discovered form. Anolis distichus Cope Bahama Islands. Common on the ceiba trees on New Providence Island. It occurs on Eleuthera, Long Island, Rum Cay and Watlings Island as well. Mr. Shreve is of the opinion that the Rum Cay form may be distinct but I only got a single specimen there in 1934. Anolis distichoides Rosen Andros Island. A poorly defined form replacing A. distichus. It is very abundant. 114 Zoologica: N, Y, Zoological Society [XIX; 3 Anolis sagrei Dumeril & Bibron Cuba and Isle of Pines; probably introduced in Jamaica and Belize. The commonest Anolis and, as its range is wide in Cuba, perhaps this form has the largest species population in the genus. The commonest fence, house- wall and brush lizard in Cuba, by far. Anolis ordinatus Cope Bahamas. Known from Turks Island to New Providence. Common everywhere. This is a derivative of the A. sagrei stock and only a moderately well defined species. It is much more distinct in life than in preserved form. Anolis luteosignifer Garman Cayman Brae. Probably as abundant as it ever was. Anolis longitibialis Noble Beata Island. The decidedly rare but well defined local representative of the A. cybotes stock. Anolis lineatopus Grey Jamaica. The common fence lizard of the dry Liguanea Plain about Kingston. It swarms here but occurs nowhere else, so far as anyone knows at present. Anolis homolechis Boulenger Cuba and Isle of Pines. A widespread and not uncommon species found in wooded ravines or low- land woods and heavy scrub. Anolis greyi Barbour Cuba. Only known from a small number taken in the town of Camaguey and in the Cubitas range of hills not far away. Anolis cybotes cybotes (Cope) Hispaniola. Common as are the allies of A. sagrei wherever they occur. This is one of a series of dominant and successful species. Anolis cybotes doris (Barbour) La Gonave. I have now seen a good many specimens of this lizard. We may follow 1935] Barbour: 2nd List, Antillean Reptiles and Amphibians 115 Miss Cochran in giving it subspecific rank. This accords with current usage for these obviously derived island forms. Anolis angusticeps Hallowell Cuba and Isle of Pines. I consider this a really rare species in western Cuba where, however, it occurs quite widely. It is more abundant in the Isle of Pines. Anolis oligaspis Cope Bahamas. Found upon New Providence (Hog Id. type), Andros I., (U.S.N.M.) and Long Island (Barbour). It is the rare representative of A. angusticeps of Cuba. It may occur also upon other islands. Much intensive herpetological work re- mains to be done in the central and southern Bahama Islands. Anolis isolepis Cope Cuba. An excessively rare species. It occurs in the mountains of Oriente Prov- ince and apparently replaces A. angusticeps. Anolis lucius Dumeril & Bibron Cuba. The abundant lizard of the limestone cliffs and open caves of central Cuba from Matanzas and Santa Clara Provinces, especially. Anolis argenteolus Cope Cuba. Found in the Province of Oriente. Far from rare, it occurs on rocks, cliffs and often also on building walls and fences. I have taken it on the trunks of the great Ficus nitida (Sp. Laurel de la India) trees which used to stand in the Plaza at Santiago. Anolis argillaceus Cope Cuba. I have never seen this species in life. Dr. Ramsden says it is not uncom- mon in the old coffee plantations high in the mountains about Guantanamo. Anolis bremeri Barbour Cuba. A fine, striking species, known only from the type which I took years ago at Herradura in Pinar del Rio Province. One of the most distinct species in Cuba. Its great maroon-brown gular fan is wholly unlike that of aii}^ other Anole. 116 Zoologica: N. Y. Zoological Society Anolis loysiana Cocteau [XIX; 3 Cuba. A rare and bizarre little lizard. It is found sparingly all over Cuba on trees having a light colored bark. It is extraordinarily like rough bark in appearance. Some believe that the genus Acantholis proposed to contain this species is really valid. It becomes more common during the summer rains than it is in the dry season, our winter. Anolis leucophaeus leucophaeus (Carman) Inagua. A common species. Anolis leucophaeus albipalpebralis (Barbour) Turks and Caicos Islands. This species seems plastic like A. dominicensis. Anolis leucophaeus mariguanae Cochran Mariguana Island. Another good representative race. Anolis leucophaeus sularum Barbour and Shreve Atwood’s Cays, Bahamas. A race, about as good as the others, which Mr. Greenway recently found on West Booby Cay in the Atwood’s Caj^ group. Anolis speciosus Carman Marie Galante. Known from Carman’s types only. I did not find it in 1929. Anolis marmoratus Dumeril & Bibron Desirade. I know nothing of this form. Carman found it abundant in 1882. Anolis roquet (Lacepede) Martinique. An abundant representative of the A. vincentii-A. luciae set of allied forms. Anolis luciae Carman St. Lucia. Apparently, like so many Antillean species, whether from one reason or another much less common than formerly. 1935] Barbour: 2nd List, Antillean Reptiles and Amphibians 117 Anolis vincentii Garman St. Vincent. Like most of the reptiles of this Island, this species is now rare. It may descend to the ground from time to time and so fall prey to the mongoose. I should have said that most of the species of this Island are extinct. Anolis gentilis Garman Grenada and the Grenadines. A rather small, inconspicuous lizard which is still abundant. Anolis opalinus Gosse Jamaica. A rather rare, woodland species, most often seen in western Jamaica. Anolis iodurus Gosse Jamaica. A beautiful and not uncommon little woodland species. It is found widely distributed on the Island. Anolis grahami Gray Jamaica. Common in the woods of eastern Jamaica. Anolis conspersus Garman Grand Cayman. A derivative of A. grahami of Jamaica. It is not common, but I have only been to Grand Cayman three times and it always happened to be very dry. Norops ophiolepis (Cope) Cuba and Isle of Pines. A common terrestrial species usually found hiding in the heavy tufts or bunches of pasture grasses. Cyclura figginsi Barbour Bitter Guana Cay, near Great Guana Cay, Exuma group. This little colony is now, I learn, almost certainly exterminated. Cyclura portoricensis Barbour Puerto Rico. Extinct but relatively recent bones found in several caves. Cyclura mattea Miller St. Thomas. Recently extinct, known from recent osseous remains only. 118 Zoologica: N. Y. Zoological Society Cyclura pinguis Barbour [XIX; 3 Anegada. Excessively rare. Cyclura stejnegeri Barbour & Noble Mona. Another rare species. This may be the same as C. cornula. Cyclura nigerrima Cope Navassa. Extinct. I am not sure that this was really distinct from C. cornuta; in fact, I rather doubt it, but material is lacking to settle the question. Cyclura cornuta (Bonnaterre) Hispaniola, La Gonave, Petit Gonave and Beata Island. Persisting only in isolated colonies on the larger island but common on Beata, although only old individuals are now to be seen. The eggs are dug up by feral dogs and if any young hatch they are devoured by the feral cats. In the New York Times of Monday, February 11, 1935, there is a some- what flamboyant account of a proposed visit of Mr. Hassler, sailing under the auspices of a large New York museum, to what is evidently Beata Island, al- though it is not mentioned by name. The declared purpose of the Expedition to secure the ‘^Cannibal Iguanas” was followed by a lurid account of the fear- some mien of these peaceful old codgers. Apparently no other explanation but cannibalism could occur to the New York scientists to account for the absence of young individuals. I had just written the answer to this question by a curious chance the day before I read this issue of the Times. To talk of canni- balism is nonsense and this sort of publicity reflects no credit on any Museum, howsoever much it may crave notoriety. Cyclura collei Gray Jamaica. Almost extinct. There are a few on Goat Island, off the Bushy Park property, and a few on the Cays about Montego Bay. Cyclura carinata carinata (Harlan) Turks Island. Abundant still on some Cays near Turks Island and in the Caicos group. Cyclura carinata bartschi Cochran Booby Cay, east of Mariguana Island. Said to be more or less intermediate between the preceding and following species. 1935] Barbour: 2nd List, Antillean Reptiles and Amphibians 119 Cyclura nuchalis Barbour & Noble Fortune Island; North Cay, Fish Cay in Acklin’s Bight. Tracks also seen on Guana Cay of the same group. Abundant on Fish Cay but rare on the other islets of Acklin’s Bight. Cyclura rileyi Stejneger Cays and west and south shores of the lagoon of Watlings Island; (Green Cay and White Cay). Still common. Cyclura cristata Schmidt (type loc. White Cay) seems to be a synoym. Mr. Armour collected a series on Green Cay during the 1934 cruise of the Utowana. Cyclura inornata Barbour & Noble U Cay in Allen’s Harbor near Highborn Cay, Bahamas. Once widespread, no doubt now extirpated through use by the negroes for food. This was the only specimen which Maynard could find — a relict on a tiny islet. Cyclura baeolopha Cope Andros Island. Reported to be considerably decreased in numbers. Cyclura caymanensis Barbour & Noble Cayman Brae and Little Cayman. ' Reported still to be not uncommon. Cyclura macleayi Gray Cuba and Isle of Pines. Rare. Persisting in only the wildest and most inaccessible districts. Cyclura ricordii (Dumeril & Bibron) Hispaniola. Long known from the type only, until rediscovered by Dr. W. L. Abbott. Now known to be not uncommon in a few scattered localities in San Domingo. Leiocephalus carinatus carinatus (Gray) Cuba, Isle of Pines, and Cayman Brae. Widespread about rocky shores, headlands and sea cliffs. So far as I am aware, seldom or never seen inland, certainly never in Cuba. With its tail tightly curled over its back this lizard jumps and hops about its haunts in a most unreptilian manner. The Cayman Brae specimens may represent a separate form but material is too scant to be sure. 120 [XIX; 3 Zoologica: N, Y, Zoological Society Leiocephalus carinatus armouri Barbour & Shreve North Bahamas. A distinct race confined to Grand Bahama, the Abacos and nearby Cays. Leiocephalus carinatus punctatus Cochran Acklin’s Island, Crooked Island and the Cays in Acklin’s Bight. A good, distinct form, probably a species rather than a subspecies. Leiocephalus carinatus picinus Barbour & Shreve Atwood’s Cay, Bahamas. An apparently strictly localized form. Leiocephalus carinatus helenae Barbour & Shreve Mira por vos Cays. Another very local race. Leiocephalus melanochlorus Cope Hispaniola. Known from Jeremie in southwest Haiti to Puerto Plata in northern San Domingo. Leiocephalus schreibersii (Gravenhorst) Hispaniola. A common species on Haiti. We have not seen it from San Domingo. Leiocephalus personatus personatus (Cope) Hispaniola. Allied to L. cubensis. Miss Cochran informs me that the typical race of this species is from southwestern Haiti. I SUSPECT L. Iherminieri (Dumeril & Bibron) to be a synonym of this species. It was said to have come from Trinidad and Martinique, L’herminier, and Plee collectors, but both these gentlemen caused confusion on more than one occasion by either labelling their material incorrectly or else by shipping the results of a visit to several islands home to Paris in one lot shipment, after receipt of which the whole consignment was entered in the records of the Jardin des Plantes as having been collected at the point of shipment. This sort of thing has caused confusion for modern workers on a host of occasions. Leiocephalus personatus aureus Cochran Haiti. Known only from the region about Jacmel. Leiocephalus personatus mentalis Cochran San Domingo. Apparently confined to the eastern portion of the Republic. 1935] Barbour: 2nd List, Antillean Reptiles and Amphibians 121 Leiocephalus personatus scalaris Cochran Haiti. From the wet, heavily forested part of northern Haiti. Leiocephalus personatus louisae Cochran Saona Island. Confined to this small island. Leiocephalus eremitus Cope Navassa. Not found by Beck or the Clench party last year. Cats and dogs, now feral, may be to blame for the disappearance of this and other species. Leiocephalus cubensis Gray Cuba and Isle of Pines. The common lizard of the canefields. I believe that investigation will show it to be very highly beneficial in controlling insects which are injurious to the industry. Leiocephalus greenwayi Barbour & Shreve Plana Cays, Bahamas. A very distinct form abundant on East Plana Cay, and probably the same form occurs on the western island. Leiocephalus psammodromus Barbour Turks Island. A common species and one which I at first called L. arenarius but found that that name had been obscurely given by Tschudi to a Peruvian species that apparently had escaped all notice of subsequent authors. Leiocephalus varius Carman Grand Cayman. When on Grand Cayman the last time, four years ago, I could not find this species, but that may have been because of the terrific drought, wide- spread that year, over the whole Antillean region. Leiocephalus virescens Stejneger Green Cay, Bahamas. Said still to be common. Leiocephalus raviceps Cope Cuba. I once doubted the validity of this species but it seems to be really well defined and confined to eastern Cuba. 122 Zoologica: N. Y. Zoological Society [XIX; 3 Leiocephalus loxogrammus loxogrammus (Cope) Rum Cay, Bahamas. This species will probably prove to be much more widespread than we now know it to be. Leiocephalus loxogrammus parnelli Barbour & Shreve Watlings Island, Bahamas. A well defined local race. Leiocephalus macropus Cope Cuba. A species found abundantly throughout the Province of Oriente but, so far as we now know, not westward of, let us say, a vertical line drawn north and south and passing about through Holguin. Leiocephalus inaguae Cochran Great Inagua. Common around the coastal region of the island. Leiocephalus semilineatus Dunn Hispaniola. Known only from Thomazeau, Haiti. Leiocephalus barahonensis Schmidt Hispaniola. Known only from the southeastern portion of San Domingo. Leiocephalus beatanus Noble Beata Island. Common and the only representative of the genus which either Noble or I was able to find on the Island. Leiocephalus vinculum Cochran Gonave Island, Haiti. Apparently far from abundant — at least about Anse a Galets. Hispaniolus pratensis Cochran Hispaniola. Taken by Milles at St. Michel, Haiti. Family ANGUIDAE Celestus de la sagra (Cocteau) Cuba. A widespread but excessively rare and perhaps disappearing species. 1935] Barbour: 2nd List, Antillean Reptiles and Amphibians 123 Celestus rugosus Cope Hispaniola. Whether or not this species is reallj^ valid remains to be determined when more material comes to hand. Celestus costatus (Cope) Hispaniola. This species may be the same as C. occiduus of Jamaica. These species all change greatly during growth and are rather in confusion taxonomically. Celestus badius Cope Navassa. This species may still occur on Navassa. I have a specimen taken but a few years ago. It may be identical with C. costatus. Celestus maculatus (Carman) Cayman Brae. A rather poorly defined but, I think, valid form apparently known from the type only. Celestus occiduus (Shaw) Jamaica. A form which was once common and of which old adults reached a great size — like Tiliqua of Australia or Corucia of the Solomon Islands. No such giants now occur and the species is rare. Celestus impressus Cope Jamaica. A smaller and commoner species than C. occiduus but still one of which we know very little. Celestus pleii (Dumeril & Bibron) Puerto Rico. A species which is much like its Cuban congener but apparently rather less rare. Sauresia sepoides Gray Hispaniola. I once sunk this genus into Celestus but the concensus of opinion is that I was wrong. It seems really to be not uncommon. Wetmorena haetiana Cochran Hispaniola. Known from a few examples taken by Wetmore in the higher regions of the La Selle massif in Haiti. 124 Zoologica: N. Y, Zoological Society Family XANTUSIIDAE Cricolepis typica (Gundlach & Peters) [XIX; 3 Cuba. Confined to the area, of a few square miles at most, between Belig and Cabo Cruz, Oriente, Cuba. Family TEIIDAE Kentropyx intermedius Gray Northern South America, Barbados. This species apparently was formerly common on Barbados but it is now wholly extinct on that Island. Garman named {K. copei) but did not describe this species. I have recently seen material from Demarara and there is no doubt as to the identity of the Barbados lizards with those from British Guiana. It may have been artificially introduced into Barbados. Ameiva aquilina Garman St. Vincent and Grenada. Extinct on St. Vincent but still persisting on Grenada. Ameiva fuscata Garman Dominica. Owing to the absence of the mongoose this, the finest of all the Antillean Ameivas, is still a common species. Ameiva cineracea Barbour & Noble Guadeloupe. Extirpated except for a few individuals which persist on the tiny islets off the coast. Ameiva atrata Garman Redonda. A black species superficially like A. corvina and living under similar con- ditions. It has not been collected recently, probably only because the Island is now almost never visited. Ameiva pluvianotata Garman Montserrat. I have just learned that this species is still very common all over the Island. Ameiva erythrops Cope St. Eustatius. Peters found this form abundant in 1922. 1935] Barbour: 2nd List, Antillean Reptiles and Amphibians 125 Ameiva griswoldi Barbour Antigua and Nevis. Extinct on Nevis, it is also almost gone on Antigua where it persists onl}^ right in the town of St. John in yards and gardens. Ameiva erythrocephala (Daudin) St. Kitts. Extirpated from the wilder parts of the Island; it still occurs in the gardens and yards of Basseterre. Here it is safe from the mongoose. Ameiva garmani Barbour Anguilla. This species is still abundant. It is closel}" allied to A. pleii. Ameiva pleii Dumeril & Bibron St. Barts and St. Martin. AVe have again no recent information to indicate that this is not still an abundant species. Ameiva corvina Cope Sombrero. A black form which, like so many Lacertids and some species of Cnemido- phorus and indeed another Ameiva, has this peculiar coloration associated with isolation on a very small, arid, sunbaked and rocky island. St. Croix. Ameiva polops Cope Extinct, but very few specimens have been preserved. Ameiva wetmorei Stejneger Puerto Rico. Rare and confined to the arid zone about Guanica. Schmidt defines its range as the limestone hills about Ensenada and on Caja de Muertos Island. This species also belongs to the lineolata-majmardi-polops stock, which thrives only in arid areas. Ameiva eleanorae Grant and Roosevelt Caja de Muertos. A rather ill-defined form confined to this tiny islet off the coast of Puerto Rico. Ameiva maynardi maynardi Garman Great Inagua. A beautiful species of the A. lineolata series, north and west coasts of Inagua. A. leucoynelas Cope 1894 is a sjmonym. 126 Zoologica: N. Y. Zoological Society [XIX; 3 Ameiva maynardi uniformis Noble & Klingel Great Inagua. Found commonly from Southwest Point to Couch Shell Point, replacing the typical form. Ameiva alboguttata Boulenger Mona Island. According to recent accounts still abundant. Closely related to the Puerto Rican form next following. Ameiva birdorum Grant Diablo Key near Fajardo, Puerto Rico. A good, distinct form confined to a tiny island of but about ten acres, but what a horrid name it bears! Ameiva exsul Cope St. Thomas, Water Island, St. John, Peter Island, Buck Island, Guana Island, Vieques, Anguilla, St. Croix and Puerto Rico. Now exterminated on St. Thomas. I have always doubted the St. Croix record. It is common where it still occurs at all. Ameiva vittipunctata Cope Hispaniola. A very beautiful and apparently not very common form. Ameiva taeniura Cope Hispaniola. When Dr. Noble and I prepared our Revision of Ameiva in 1915, I think I was principally to blame for concluding that this species was the young of A. lineolata. Miss Cochran has shown that this is untrue and that the species is perfectly valid. Ameiva lineolata Dumeril & Bibron Hispaniola. Widespread and abundant. Ameiva chrysolaema chrysolaema Cope Hispaniola, La Gonave. A very common and widely spread species. A large series taken last year at Anse a Galets, La Gonave Island. Ameiva chrysolaema abbotti Noble Beata Island. Common on this beautiful and generally uninhabited Island. 1935] Barbour: 2nd List, Antillean Reptiles and Amphibians 127 Ameiva chrysolaema juliae Cochran Haiti, Isle Tortue. Ameiva barbouri Cochran La Gonave Island: La Source. Taken only by Eyerdam in 1927. I did not find it when on La Gonave in 1929 and November, 1934. Although I secured a great number of Ameivas, all were A. chrysolaema chrysolaema. Ameiva thoracica Cope Bahama Islands. Now known to be widespread in the northern and central portion of the Bahama archipelago. Ameiva dorsalis Gray Jamaica. Formerly abundant, then, after the mongoose came, pretty well reduced — almost exterminated. Now recovering slightly in numbers in the cities and settlements where the mongoose population is kept in hand. Ameiva auberi Cocteau Cuba and Isle of Pines. Nowhere abundant but very widely distributed. Perhaps most frequently seen along railway embankments. Ameiva rosamondae Cochran Saona Island. A most beautiful and very distinct species. The most brilliantly colored of the entire genus. It is distinctly a rare form. Ameiva beatensis Noble Beata Island. I found this species much less common than A. chrysolaema ahhotti on re- cent visits to Beata. Ameiva navassae Schmidt Navassa. Known from the type only, taken by R. H. Beck in 1917. Not found by the last collectors in 1930. Scolecosaurus alien! alien! (Barbour) Grenada. A distinct and not uncommon species of the wet spice gardens. ThisJittle creature is most commonly found under heaps of half decayed cocoa pods. 128 Zoologica: N. Y. Zoological Society Scolecosaurus alleni parviceps Barbour [XIX; 3 Cannouan Island. Known from a single specimen taken by Dr. David Fairchild while on the Utowana. The genus probably occurs on all the Grenadines. Gymnophthalmus pleei Bocourt St. Lucia and Martinique. Extinct on Martinique. Excessively rare on St. Lucia. Whether G. luetkenii, also of Bocourt, from “St. Lucia” is really distinct or whether it ever came from St. Lucia will, in part, be solved finally only by examination of the type. Only pleei was found on these two islands by Garman, who took a good series before it was exterminated. Parker, who records the one specimen taken in 1932, remarks that its characters tend to confirm the sup- position that there is only one West Indian species. Family AMPHISBAENIDAE Cadea palirostrata Dickerson Isle of Pines. A very distinct and abundant species. Cadea blanoides Stejneger Cuba. Rare and confined to Matanzas, Havana and Pinar del Rio Provinces. Amphisbaena fenestrata Cope Tortola, St. Thomas, St. Croix and St. John. This form may be found to be still more widely distributed. Amphisbaena bakeri Stejneger Puerto Rico. Rare and local. Amphisbaena caeca Cuvier Puerto Rico. Not very uncommon. Amphisbaena manni Barbour Hispaniola. This form seems to be about equally abundant with innocens. Amphisbaena innocens Weinland Hispaniola. Not uncommon in Haiti. 1935] Barbour: 2nd List, Antillean Reptiles and Amphibians 129 Amphisbaena cubana Peters Cuba. Common in Central Cuba. Best found by following plows. Amphisbaena caudalis Cochran Grande Cayemite Isl., Haiti. Known from but two examples taken by Eyerdam in 1927. It is allied to A. innocens. Family SCINCIDAE Mabuya mabouia (Dumeril & Bibron) From Mexico and the Bahamas through the West Indies and on the mainland south to Trinidad and Patagonia. Absent from Cuba. Any number of races have been recognized and named from time to time, some confined to single islands and others to island groups, but with large series all of these forms break down. Incipient races there are beyond doubt but apparently the inherent fluidity or variability within the species has prevented these races from becoming fixed. My friend. Professor E. R. Dunn, supplies me with this information in litteris. Skinks are apparently extinct on the following islands where once they were known to occur: St. John, St. Lucia, St. Vincent, Grenada, Barbados, Martinique. Mabuya lineolata Noble & Hassler San Domingo. A fine distinct species which has recently been found. It must be very rare to have eluded collectors for so long. The mongoose is abundant in San Domingo to be sure, but the early collectors all failed to find the skink. Suborder OPHIDIA Family TYPHLOPIDAE Typhlops tenuis Salvin Mexico, Guatemala and Andros Island. Rosen got what he called this species at Mastic Point in 1910. I have never felt very sure that it was not an undescribed form wrongly identified. Typhlops rostellatus Stejneger Puerto Rico. Seems to be related to T. dominicana. Perhaps other species remain to be uncovered in the Lesser Antilles. Typhlops richardii Dumeril & Bibron St. Thomas, Tortola, St. John. 130 Zoologica: N. Y. Zoological Society Typhlops pusillus Barbour [XIX; 3 Hispaniola. Not uncommon in Haiti. Typhlops dominicana Stejneger Dominica and Guadeloupe. The specimens from Martinique should belong here, one would suppose, rather than to T. jamaicensis. More material is highly desirable from all of the islands. Typhlops platycephalus Dumeril & Bibron Puerto Rico, Vieques, Culebra. Apparently fairly well differentiated though long confused with T. jamaicen- sis. Typhlops sulcatus Cope Navassa. May not really be a valid species. It has not been found by the recent collectors. Typhlops jamaicensis (Shaw) Jamaica. A common form. Typhlops monensis Schmidt Mona Island. A little known member of the T. lumbricalis series. This species is not very sharply defined. Only two specimens are known and more material is desirable and no doubt still obtainable. Typhlops lumbricalis (Linne) Cuba, Hispaniola, Andros, New Providence and Abaco. Common everywhere and no doubt fortuitously introduced into the Bahamas. Typhlops granti Ruthven & Gaige Caja de Muertos, 18 miles off Ponce, Puerto Rico. Family LEPTOTYPHLOPIDAl^ Leptotyphlops albifrons (Wagler) Watlings Island, Antigua, Grenada and with a wide range in tropical America. This tiny burrowing snake has an erratic distribution and has probably been carried about by primitive man, being occasionally introduced with material intended for garden planting. 1935] Barbour: 2nd List, Antillean Reptiles and Amphibians 131 Leptotyphlops bilineata (Schlegel) Martinique, St. Lucia, Guadeloupe and Barbados. This, another tiny species, may have a considerably wider range among islands than v/e now know. Family BOIDAE Epicrates angulifer Bibron Cuba and Isle of Pines. Formerly common everywhere, now confined to the wilder regions, although individuals occasionally stray into the cultivated areas. The great extension of cane cultivation has decimated this species. Every cane cutter carries a machete all the time and uses it on every snake. Epicrates striatus striatus (Fischer) Hispaniola. This form seems to be really uncommon. Epicrates striatus strigilatus (Cope) Andros and New Providence in the Bahamas. The fowl snake of the Bahamas was formerly abundant and may still be found but it is ruthlessly killed by the natives on account of its fondness for poultry. Stull believes these two forms to be separable. Epicrates striatus chrysogaster (Cope) Turks Island. Of this form I have no recent information, except that it is said to be rather common on some of the Turks Island Cays. Epicrates relicquus Barbour & Shreve Sheep Cay off Gt. Inagua Island, Bahamas. This is no doubt the extirpated boa of Great Inagua, persisting on this islet to which no feral animals have been carried. Epicrates inornatus inornatus (Reinhardt) Puerto Rico. Now a really rare species and one which is related to the large boas of Cuba, Jamaica and Hispaniola. Epicrates inornatus granti Stull Tortola and Guana Island. Known from the single specimen taken by Major Chapman Grant on Tortola. He learned that it occurs in the rocky cliffs of Guana Island also. 132 Zoologica: N. Y. Zoological Society [XIX; 3 Epicrates fordii fordii (Gunther) Hispaniola. More information concerning this species will be awaited with interest. It is certainly very rare. I recently got one at Cap Haitien. Epicrates fordii monensis Zenneck Mona. A very little-known species but one which I believe to be most closely allied to E. fordii. This combination of names is by Stull, the most recent reviser of the Boidae. Epicrates subflavus Stejneger Jamaica. I had supposed this species gone in Jamaica itself but Mr. Frank Cundall of the Institute of Jamaica at Kingston has one alive, from the southeast part of the Island. It persists on Goat Island off the south coast, in small numbers. Epicrates gracilis (Fischer) Hispaniola. I have never seen a specimen of this form in all the Haitian material which has passed through my hands. As described it has a very peculiar and unique color pattern but modern material would be very welcome. Boa cookii grenadensis (Barbour) Grenada. I may not have been justified in separating this form from B. cookii. I am, however, inclined to believe that it is fairly well differentiated and stabilized. It is not very rare. Boa hortulana Linne St. Vincent, Grenada, The Grenadines and Trinidad, widespread on the main- land. The species still occurs on Grenada and may, being arboreal, persist on St. Vincent. This, however, I am inclined now to doubt. Constrictor constrictor orophias (Linne) St. Lucia, Dominica. The “tete chien’’ is rare on St. Lucia but still occurs — and even, occasion- ally at least, eats a mongoose. On Dominica it is less uncommon. There is a Zoological Park (Phila.) record for St. Kitts which I believe to be incorrect; captive snakes get carried far and wide and dealers convey notoriously in- accurate locality records. There are also records from Trinidad but my friend, Mr. Urich, a most competent resident authority, told me that the species does not occur in Trinidad. It is confined to two islands only. 1935] Barbour: 2nd List, Antillean Reptiles and Amphibians 133 Tropidophis maculatus maculatus (Bibron) Cuba and Isle of Pines. Found sparingly in western Cuba and the Isle of Pines. I am following Miss Stull’s conclusions in the taxonomy of this genus. I am not wholly convinced of the relationships implied, but her work has been most painstaking and is based on all available material. Tropidophis maculatus jamaicensis Stull Jamaica. Excessively rare, almost extinct, since the introduction of the mongoose. Tropidophis maculatus haetianus (Cope) Hispaniola. Not uncommon all over the Island. Tropidophis pardalis pardalis (Gundlach) Cuba and Great Abaco Island. This is a most unlikely distribution. Artificial introduction is possible but most improbable. Convergence to identity or persistence of a type on Abaco, which has differentiated on other Bahama Islands from a once widespread form, is a scarcely satisfactory explanation, either. Tropidophis pardalis canus (Cope) Great Inagua, Eleuthera Islands, Cat Island, and Long Island. Common on Eleuthera but now very rare on Inagua. Tropidophis pardalis curtus (Garman) New Providence, Bahamas. A common form. It occurs under stones of walls and in the rocks heaped about the orange trees. Since it at times sallies forth after heavy rains, it is locally called ‘‘thunder snake.” Like all its congeners, it is nocturnal. Tropidophis pardalis androsi Stull Andros Island. Apparently abundant but I have never happened to see a specimen. Tropidophis pardalis bucculentus (Cope) Navassa. Known from but three specimens, it has not been found by recent ex- peditions. Tropidophis wrighti Stull Cuba. Known, so far as I am aware, from the type only. This was taken by 134 Zoologica: N, Y, Zoological Society [XIX; 3 Charles Wright, the botanist, who collected for a long time in the Guantanamo Basin and, I think, nowhere else in Cuba. Tropidophis melanurus (Schlegel) Cuba. The largest member of the genus, reaching a length of nearly a yard. It is abundant and widespread. It feeds on frogs, lizards and birds. Although more inclined to be arboreal than the other species of the genus, it is equally noc- turnal and perhaps the most abundant of them all. Tropidophis semicinctus (Gundlach & Peters) Cuba and Isle of Pines. Widespread but distinctly uncommon. Family COLUBRIDAE Natrix compressicauda Kennicott Cuba, Florida Keys, extreme southwestern Florida. My finding this species in mangroves near Caibarien on the north coast of Cuba established the specific identity of the excessively rare Cuban Natrix and relegated several long questioned names to a definite synonymy. Tretanorhinus variabilis Dumeril & Bibron Cuba. Not uncommon in fresh-water ponds and rivers. A nocturnal species. Its mainland ally, T. nigroluteus, is rather partial to mangrove swamps. Tretanorhinus insulae -pinorum Barbour Isle of ‘Pines. This species seems to have regularly 19 rows of scales while the Cuban snakes have 21. This is, at first sight, a trivial character but one which is ap- parently really diagnostic. Drymobius boddaerti bruesi (Barbour) St. Vincent and Grenada. Extinct on St. Vincent but still to be found on Young’s Island off its coast and very rare in Grenada. Mr. Shreve believes that with more material from Young’s Island another race might be named. My friend, Mrs. Gaige, advised me to resurrect my name bruesi for this race which I first applied with the idea that the Grenadian snake was an Alsophis. Uromacer oxyrhynchus Dumeril & Bibron Hispaniola and Isle Tortue. A form found all over the Island, i.e., both Haiti and San Domingo. I have seen it from Port aii Prince and Samana. 1935] Barbour: 2nd List, Antillean Reptiles and Amphibians 135 Uromacer frenatus (Gunther) Hispaniola and Isle Tortue. We now have a fine series of this species. Uromacer wetmorei Cochran Beata Island. A valid form related to the preceding. Uromacer catesbyi (Schlegel) Hispaniola and La Gonave. A widespread but rather rare species. Uromacer scandax Dunn Isle Tortue, near Haiti. An abundant ally of U. catesbyi. Uromacer dorsalis Dunn La Gonave Island. Apparently a derivative of the Haitian U. frenatus. Alsophis anomalus (Peters) Hispaniola and Isle Tortue. I have but little information to give concerning this species. Dr. G. M. Allen took one at Port au Prince in 1919. I took one on Isle Tortue during the Utowana cruise of 1934, besides which I have received no other recent specimens. Alsophis leucomelas leucomelas (Dumeril & Bibron) Guadeloupe and Marie Galante. Extinct on both islands. Alsophis leucomelas sanctorum (Barbour) Les Saintes Is. near Guadeloupe. No doubt abundant still. Alsophis leucomelas sibonius (Cope) Dominica. With no mongoose on this island, the species should be abundant still. ' There are still great areas of wild land on Dominica. Alsophis leucomelas manselli Parker Montserrat. Still to be found. 136 Zoologica: N. Y. Zoological Society Alsophis leucomelas antiguae Parker [XIX; 3 Antigua. Extinct. Alsophis sanctae-crucis Cope St. Croix. Extinct. Alsophis melanichnus Cope Hispaniola. We await more information concerning this snake with great interest. Its non-appearance in any of the collections which have come before me is perhaps indicative that it is fast disappearing. Alsophis ater (Gosse) Jamaica. Very rare indeed. A species which has suffered fearfully from the ravages of the mongoose. Dunn has shown that this is related to A. melanichnus Cope of Haiti. Alsophis rijgersmaei Cope St. Martins, St. Barts and Anguilla. No herpetologist has visited St. Martins in recent years, but Dunn has re- examined the types and considers that Garman’s name of Alsophis cinereus cannot stand as valid. Alsophis variegatus (Schmidt) Mona Island. Probably still abundant. Alsophis portoricensis (Reinhardt & Liitken) Puerto Rico, Desecheo and Caja de Muertos Island. A distinctly rare form. Alsophis anegadae Barbour Anegada. I still feel that this form warrants recognition as valid. Its peculiar pattern is characteristic of every Anegada specimen which I have seen, even though it occurs very sporadically elsewhere, where other patterns are the place mode. Alsophis antillensis (Schlegel) St. Thomas, Salt Island, Peter Island, St. John, Tortola, Virgin Gorda and Puerto Rico, also Culebra, Pinero and Dog Island. Extinct on St. Thomas, rare on Puerto Rico, elsewhere abundant. 1935] Barbour: 2nd List, Antillean Reptiles and Amphibians 137 Alsophis rufiventris (Dumeril & Bibron) Saba, St. Kitts, St. Eustatius and Nevis. Still abundant on Saba and St. Eustatius but extinct on the other two islands. Alsophis vudii vudii Cope Bahama Islands. This racer is common throughout most of the middle group of Bahama Islands: — New Providence, Eleuthera, Long Island, Green Cay, the Exuma Cays, Andros Ids. and no doubt upon many others. Alsophis vudii aterrimus Barbour & Shreve Grand Bahama. A black racer, not brown or grayish, perhaps confined to this little-known island. Alsophis vudii raineyi Barbour & Shreve Crooked Isl., Bahamas. A well defined local form. Alsophis vudii utowanae Barbour & Shreve Sheep Cay off Great Inagua Isl., Bahamas. Another distinct relict on Sheep Cay which was no doubt common on Great Inagua before the introduction of so many domesticated animals which have become feral. Alsophis fuscicauda Garman Cayman Brae. I will not feel certain of the status of this species until much more material is secured. Alsophis caymanus Garman Grand Cayman. I have never seen sufficient material to decide whether this form is really different from that of Cuba. Alsophis angulifer Bibron Cuba and Isle of Pines. A very common species in all open plains, pastures and savannas. Dromicus andreae andreae Reinhardt & Liitken Cuba. A common snake at pastures and open fields. 138 Zoologica: N. Y. Zoological Society [XIX; 3 Dromicus andreae nebulatus (Barbour) Isle of Pines. Another common form. It is closely related to the foregoing species, indeed closely similar specimens occur also in extreme eastern Cuba. We should prob- ably recognize three races or abandon this name. Dromicus callilaemus Gosse Jamaica. Small and more retiring, this species is not so near extermination as L. aler. Nevertheless it is a distinctly rare snake. Dromicus juliae Cope Dominica. Probably still not uncommon. Dromicus melanotus (Shaw) Grenada, Trinidad and Venezuela. Extinct apparently on Grenada but common elsewhere. Dromicus perfuscus Cope Barbados. Extinct. Dromicus mariae (Barbour) Marie Galante. Extinct. Dromicus boulengeri (Barbour) St. Lucia. Extinct. Dromicus cursor (Lacepede) Martinique. Extinct. Dromicus anegadae (Barbour) Anegada. We have no recent information concerning this form but no reason to suppose that it is not still abundant. Dromicus exiguus Cope St. Thomas, St. John and Culebra. Extinct on St. Thomas, it is probably not uncommon on the other islands. Dromicus stahli (Stejneger) Puerto Rico. Still not uncommon, widely distributed and confined to this Island. 1935] Barbour: 2nd List, Antillean Reptiles and Amphibians 139 Dromicus alleni (Dunn) La Gonave Island. A distinct and striking island form. Dromicus parvifrons parvifrons (Cope) Hispaniola. One of several races which appear to be common, reasonably well localized in southwest Haiti and probably valid. Dromicus parvifrons niger (Dunn) Hispaniola. This form inhabits most of San Domingo. Dromicus parvifrons protenus (Jan) Hispaniola. A common widespread form. Known from many localities in northern and central Haiti and the higher plateau of San Domingo. Dromicus parvifrons lincolni (Cochran) Beata Island. A slightly differentiated form. Dromicus parvifrons tortuganus (Dunn) Isle Tortue. Another well marked form of which we took a good series during the visit of the Utowana to this island in 1934. Dromicus parvifrons rosamondae Cochran Isle Vache. A fairly well defined form based on a good series of specimens. Hypsirhynchus ferox Gunther Hispaniola. This species is strictly nocturnal and oviparous. In my experience, it is restricted apparently to the Cul de Sac area not far from Port au Prince. Dunn has discarded the genus Hypsirhynchus. I believe that this sluggish, nocturnal form is well worthy of generic distinction. Arrhyton taeniatum Gunther Cuba. An uncommon species, like its fellow, found by day under stones or while plowing. At night it is sometimes met with abroad. 140 Zoologica: N, Y. Zoological Society [XIX; 3 Arrhyton vittatum (Gundlach & Peters) Cuba. I now consider that there are but two species of this genus peculiar to Cuba. Several other names have been given, as I believe, to individual variants only. These snakes are probably allies of Contia of the mainland. Darlingtonia haetiana Cochran Haiti. An extraordinary new genus recently found by Dr. Darlington of Harvard at Roche Croix, in the northeastern foothills of Morne La Hotte, at 5,000 ft. altitude. Its affinity may be with the preceding genus but it is very well de- fined. Pseudoboa cloelia (Daudin) Dominica, St. Lucia, Grenada, Trinidad and tropical America generally. This species is surely extinct in St. Lucia, probably excessively rare on Grenada and its status on Dominica is still, no doubt, unchanged. I have never, however, seen or heard of recent specimens from any of the islands. Nevertheless, I think the records are really based on valid wild-caught specimens. Pseudoboa neuweidii (Dumeril & Bibron) Grenada, Trinidad and with a wide range in tropical America. Garman took three examples on Grenada during the Blake Expedition about 1883. So far as I can learn it has never been taken before or since. laltris dorsalis (Gunther) Hispaniola, Isle Vache. A large and uncommon species which has been found in both Haiti and San Domingo. It seems to have no close allies among Antillean reptiles and to be very rarely collected indeed. laltris parishi Cochran Haiti. Known only from southwestern Haiti. Family CROTALIDAE Bothrops atrox (Linne) Martinique and St. Lucia. Whatever may be the origin of the Fer-de-lance’s appearance on these islands, one thing Amaral has definitely proved — the snake is the common wide-ranging form of tropical America. 1935] Barbour: 2nd List, Antillean Reptiles and Amphibians 141 Order CHELONIA Family TESTUDINIDAE Testudo tabulata Walbaum Tropical South America, feral on Lovango Cay and Water Island, near St. Thomas. Often carried to most of the islands from South America. By no chance a native element of the true Antillean fauna. Family EMYDIDAE Pseudemys ssp. Cuba, Jamaica, Hispaniola, Puerto Rico. Unfortunately it is not yet possible to settle the taxonomic status of the various Greater Antillean pond tortoises. There may be several forms on each of the larger islands but until sundry type specimens are located in European museums it is silly and futile to try to allocate names. Pseudemys felis Barbour Cat Island. A recent extraordinary surprise from the Bahamas. Order LORI CAT A Family CROCODYLIDAE Crocodylus rhombifer Cuvier Cuba and Isle of Pines. Found in the Zapata Swamp in Cuba and no doubt still also in the Cienaga of the Isle of Pines. Specimens more than six feet long are now much less often seen than a generation ago. Crocodylus acutus Cuvier Cuba, Jamaica and Hispaniola; as well as extreme southern Florida and the Keys and Central America. Crocodylus intermedius Graves Orinoco Basin. Accidental in Grenada, Sept. 6, 1910. f iBtetu ^orfe Zoological ^orietp Scientific Publications A completely classified list of the subjects included in each of the finished volumes of Zoologica, and all other publications of the New York Zoological Society will be furnished on application. Address H. R. MITCHELL Manager f Zoological Park 185th St. and Southern Boulevard, New York City ZOOLOGICA SCIENTIFIC CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE NEW YORK ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY VOLUME XIX. NUMBER 4 THE REPRODUCTIVE HABITS OF THE COMMON CATFISH, AMEIURUS NEBULOSUS (LE SUEUR), WITH A DISCUSSION OF THEIR SIGNIFICANCE IN ONTOGENY AND PHYLOGENY. C. M. Bredee, Jr. New York Aquarium, PUBLISHED BY THE SOCIETY THE ZOOLOGICAL PARK, NEW YORK June 29, 1935 ■Nfm fork Zoningtral ^otirtg General Office: 101 Park Avenue, New York City (I^ffkerjs President, Madison Grant Honorary President, Henry Fairfield Osborn Vice-Presidents, W. Redmond Cross and Kermit Roosevelt Chairman, Executive Committee, Madison Grant Treasurer, Cornelius R. Agnew Secretary, Henry Fairfield Osborn, Jr. Poarti of firru£(tee£{ Clafig of 1936 Madison Grant, Lewis R. Morris, Archer M. Huntington, George D. Pratt,* Cornelius R. Agnew, Harrison Williams, Marshall Field, Ogden L. Mills, Vincent Astor, C. Suydam Cutting, Childs Frick, Alfred Ely Claris of 1937 George Bird Grinnell, Frederic C. Walcott, George C. Clark, W. Redmond Cross, Henry Fairfield Osborn, Jr., George Gordon Battle, Bayard Dominick, Anson W. Hard, Robert Gordon McKay, Kermit Roosevelt, Grafton H. Pyne, John M. Schiff Clasfs! of 1938 Henry Fairfield Osborn, Robert S. Brewster, Edward S. Harkness, Edwin Thorne, Irving K. Taylor, Harry Payne Bingham, Landon K. Thorne, J. Watson Webb, Oliver D. Filley, De Forest Grant, H. de B. Parsons,* George F. Baker ^cienti'fk W. Reid Blair, Director of the Zoological Park William T. Hornaday, Director Emeritus Charles H. Townsend, Director of the Aquarium C. M. Breder, Jr., Assistant Director, Aquarium Raymond L. Ditmars, Curator of Mammals and Reptiles William Beebe, Honorary Curator of Birds and Director of Department of Tropical Research Lee S. Crandall, Curator of Birds H. C. Raven, Prosector Charles V. Noback, Veterinarian Claude W. Leister, AssH to the Director and Curator, Educational Activities Edward R. Osterndorff, Photographer William Bridges, Editor and Curator of Publications Cbitorial Committee Madison Grant, Chairman W. Reid Blair Charles H. Townsend William Beebe George Bird Grinnell William Bridges *Deceased Zoologica, Vol. XIX, No. 3. THE REPRODUCTIVE HABITS OF THE COMMON CATFISH, AMEIURUS NEBULOSUS (LE SUEUR), WITH A DISCUSSION OF THEIR SIGNIFICANCE IN ONTOGENY AND PHYLOGENY. C. M. Bredeb, Jr. New York Aquarium. (Figs. 12-23 incl.) Introduction. A considerable number of students have observed and described the reproductive habits of the common catfish, Ameiurus nebulosus (Le Sueur). They have in no case, however, attempted to analyze critically the possible ontogenetic and phylogenetic significance to be attached to the various details of the procreational behavior. It is the purpose of the present communication, therefore, to con- sider the biological import of the various items involved, especially in the light of detailed observations on four successive seasons of activity by two pairs of fish. These observations are supported by others in less detail, both in the laboratory and in the field, as well as by general agreement with the observations of Girard (1854), Eycleshymer (1901), Smith (1903), Smith and Harron (1904), Gill (1907 a and b), Hankinson (1908), Forbes and Richardson (1909), Wright and Allen (1913), McAtee and Weed (1915), Fowler (1917), and Adams and Hankinson (1928). A general account of the obser- vations made the first year has already been published. (Breder 1932.) Another reason for pursuing this study was to facilitate a com- parison of reproductive habits between unrelated groups of fishes that have superficially similar behavior patterns. For example, the nest building habits of certain cichlids seem to be rather similar in the principal design. A study of one of these, Aequidens latifrons, has already been published, Breder (1934 a). In this the present study has been mentioned. The details of comparison, however, 143 JUU-8 1835 144 Zoologica: N. Y. Zoological Society [XIX; 4 have been withheld for the present paper and are here treated in full. A further reason for making the present study involves the problem of the genesis of oral incubation in fishes. The mode of origin in the Cichlidae has already been discussed in the paper above referred to. (See also Breder 1933 b.). Details of its probable origin in the Nematognathi are discussed herein, while the origin of this habit in the labyrinth fishes will appear in a subsequent paper based on a similar study of the genus Betta. All of the observations here described refer to studies made in the tanks of the New York Aquarium, unless mention is made to the contrary. The photographs of Ameiurus are all the work of S. C. Dunton of the Aquarium staff, whose intelligent efforts made possible these pictures of an intrinsically difficult subject. Appreciation is also expressed for the helpfulness of Mr. H. E. Dixon, in charge of temperate fresh water fishes at the Aquarium. The data concerning Opladelus were kindly supplied by Mr. W. H. Chute, director of the Shedd Aquarium, at which institution the observations were made. The photographs of this species were taken by L. Tutell. Influence of Captivity. Under the conditions in the exhibition tanks in which the cat- fish are displayed at the New York Aquarium, their health and activity appear to be entirely normal. Reproductive activity, how- ever, was formerly unknown. This condition was under the author's personal observation from 1921 to 1930 inclusive, a period in which ten reproductive seasons passed with no such activity. The fishes usually numbered from eight to twelve mature specimens. They were confined in a glass-fronted aquarium measuring 44 inches deep, 51 inches long and 34 inches wide at the surface, the back sloping down to a width of 26 inches at the bottom. The water supply. New York City tap water, fluctuated with the season between an extreme winter low of 4.4° C. and a summer high of 23.3° C. Food consisted chiefly of fish flesh and beef heart. During the colder months little or no food was taken. As the spawning season approached some of the specimens, presumably females, became larger in girth, seemingly with devel- oping roe. Occasionally one or more fish made what appeared to be a desultory effort at fanning detritus from a corner. These two facts were the only ones that even suggested the passing of the spawning 1935] Breder: Reproductive Habits of Common Catfish 145 season. An effort to induce spawning, when such activity had been noted, was made on August 12, 1931. Breder (1932) wrote, ‘'In order to encourage them as much as possible, two days later a few rocks were so arranged as to form a shelter to which they might retire. Almost at once they began to investigate the structure and apparently satisfied with it cleared away all the gravel under the most sheltered part down to the bare concrete base of the tank.’' Spawning occurred on August 18. The attention of the parents was so largely occupied in defend- ing the nest against the attempted depredations of their tank mates that the latter were removed and the breeding pair were left alone in the same aquarium until the next season, when they spawned twice in 1932. Two other fish, which appeared to be a male and female, were taken from the original group now housed in another tank, in the spring of 1932. These spawned almost immediately, under a similar rock structure, and a second spawning followed. They were left alone in their tank through the season of 1933, when spawning occurred once and twice in 1934. The original pair spawned twice in 1933. The data concerning these specimens are listed in Table I, with the pairs designated A and B, respectively. Other specimens, more than two to an aquarium, showed no spawn- ing activity, nor did specimens of Ameiurus natalis (Le Sueur) or A. catus (Linnaeus) which could not be given exclusive quarters because of limitations in the number of available aquaria. It has been noted previously by Kendall (1910) that A. nehulosus may spawn more than once a season. It would consequently appear that under such conditions the chief inhibition to the reproduction of Ameiurus is the lack of a suitable spawning site, and crowding. While it might well be sup- posed that spawning occurred every year, and that the products were simply immediately engulfed by the tank mates of the parents, there is reason to believe that no spawning took place in these relatively crowded tanks. Since the known spawnings took place in the early morning or forenoon, it is extremely unlikely that in ten years the keeper would have failed each time to find even a remnant of the egg mass or any other evidence of spawning. Further, the immediate collapse of the female’s sides on spawning is very notice- able and not readily overlooked, while those fish distended in a crowded tank were noted to reduce slowly in girth over a period of about two months, as though the eggs were being resorbed. 146 Zoologica: N. Y, Zoological Society [XIX; 4 if this interpretation can actually be shown to be the case then some reflex, operating through some neuro-endocrine mechanism, would have to be invoked. If such could be shown to be in operation it would have a signiflcant bearing on many problems concerned with the effect of population density and its relation to the reproduc- tive rate. At least this study has demonstrated that given two healthy Ameiurus, physiologically capable of reproduction, isolation in an aquarium provided with a rock or similar shelter will practi- cally insure their spawning. TABLE I. DATA ON THE SPAWNING OF AMEIURUS NEBULOSUS. Spawn- ing Pair Spawning Date Hatching Date Date young fish left bottom Temp. ° C.3 Days to hatch Days to swim Refers to figure 1 Ai Aug. 18, 1931 Aug. 24 Sept. 3 21.1 6 10 20 and 21 2 A July— 1932 — — 20.7 (mean) — — 18 and 19 3 B July— 1932 — — 22.0 (mean) — — — 4 A Aug. — 1932 — — 21.1 (mean) — — — 5 B Aug.— 1932 — — 21.1 (mean) — — — 6 A2 July 15, 1933 July 25 Aug. 10 21.1 10 16 12 and 13, 17 7 B July 22, 1933 — — 21.1 — — — 8 A Aug. 13, 1933 Aug. 22 — 21.1 9 — 14 and 15, 16 9 B July 5, 1934 July 11 July 18 23.3 6 7 — 10 B Aug. 7, 1934 Aug. 15 — 23.3 — — — 1 other fishes present in the aquarium at this spawning. 2 Eggs removed, to laboratory, the dates of hatching et cetera, referring to the artificially incubated eggs. 3 Temp, read at time of ovaposition except “means” which are for the current month. Spawning. The details of the reproductive act as here described are a com- posite of observation for four consecutive seasons compared with details given in the literature by others. The data covered by the spawnings studied are given in Table I. On finding a spot to her liking, a gravid female catfish will pro- ceed to modify it further to suit her purpose. The male will also partake in this activity, at least in some cases. In the aquarium studied, only a thin layer of sand and pebbles covered the concrete bottom. Consequently these fishes had little excavating work to do. The results of their labors may be seen in Figure 12 and in all sub- sequent pictures. The differences between the three successive years may be noted, as Figures 12 to 17 inclusive are of 1933, Figures 1935] Breder: Reproductive Habits of Common Catfish 147 18-19 of 1932, and Figures 20-21 of 1931. The removal of the sand and gravel, so far as seen, was 'accomplished exclusively by pushing and exerting vigorous swimming motions close to the bottom. The size of the objects dislodged may be judged from the illustrations. Others, with different conditions, made various observations; the difference probably represented merely the degree of adaptabil- ity, in the matter of nest building, that these fishes possess. Smith (1903) writes, ‘‘They made a nest on July 3, 1902, by removing in their mouths upwards of a gallon of gravel from one end of the tank leaving the slate bottom bare.’' Fowler (1917) remarks of this species, “It nests in various situations, or in water from several feet in depth to that of but a few inches. Though only a few nests were noticed in a restricted area, sometimes a dozen or more may be found on one shoal and close to one another. Frequently the fish take advantage of any objects, such as logs, rocks, et cetera, for sheltering the nest. There is always a great range of variation in many of these features, especially due to the individuals and condi- tions. No two nests were ever found exactly alike, and the same was true of the spawners.” Gill’s (1907a) drawing of an Ameiurus nest (ideal) is not like any described in the literature or seen by the author, but more nearly resembles a centrarchid nest. Sex recognition is not understood in this species and there seems to be no fighting for mates. However, Kendall (1910) describes marks on males that suggest fighting. It would seem that when moved by the developing gonads, the fishes seek out holes and begin excavating. This is apparently the primary basis, but just how a male and a female come to occupy a single cavity, instead of two fish of the same sex, is not clear. Pearson and Miller (1935) describe large aggregations of mature and nearly ripe Ameiurus natalis in Florida on May 6 along the shore line. This would seem to be a preconnubium. Injuries were noted on the dorsal and caudal fins, as well as elsewhere. These, the writer suggests, may be due to the attacks of garfish, specimens of which were numerous. It would seem likely, however, that some of the injuries, at least, were due to the catfish mauling each other. It is suspected that tactile, ol- factory and gustatory senses play a part, since a pair may be fre- quently seen going over one another with their highly sensitive barbels. Since Ameiurus is such a chemically sensitive fish, as is well-known, and since its optical apparatus is so poorly developed. 148 Zoologica: N. Y. Zoological Society [XIX; 4 this suspicion becomes not unlikely. If such is the case it is not remarkable that the detection of acts of sex recognition is difficult to humans. The transliteration of the impulses received, and the corresponding reactions of an animal living largely in a world of tactile and chemical stimuli to another living largely in a world of visual and auditory stimuli, is certainly apt to be difficult except in the simplest cases. That Ameiurus is capable of sound production is well known, as is the fact that most, if not all, Nematognathi are well marked in this respect. If the sounds that the common catfish produces have any significance in sex recognition, no evidence of it has yet been discovered. After the nest has finally been completed the prospective spawners spend much time lying side by side with their tails to the opening of the nest, as shown in Figure 12. At such times they are usually in contact. This quietude is interrupted by swimming in a nearly circular path, the one fish following close to the other, as shown in Figure 13. Not infrequently at such times the tail of one fish, apparently accidentally, slips into the mouth of the other. If the latter closes down on the intruded tail, and it usually does, the bitten fish leaves the nest as though shot from a gun. After swim- ming about for a while it returns to resume the activities. This, so far as the present interpretations go, seems to be nothing more than a quite accidental byplay, caused by these circling movements and the large mouth of the species that is so frequently opened wide. As spawning becomes more imminent these circling movements occur with increasing frequency. Finally they flatten so as to merge into a simple quiescent side to side position, with the fish facing in opposite directions and with their bodies in close contact, as shown in Figure 14. In this position spawning takes place. A large number of “spawning acts'' occur until the female is emptied of her eggs. The first few attempts produce few eggs, possibly not more than three or four with each effort. Figure 14 was photographed after a few spawning attempts had been made, and immediately in front of the fish two lone eggs may be seen. Finally the eggs begin to flow freely and hundreds are shed at a time. This condition is shown in Figure 15 where a conical pile of eggs just shed may be seen under the body of the female. They are of a pale cream color, and average about 3 mm. in diameter. Between every spawning effort the fishes rest, the male in a 1935] Breder: Reproductive Habits of Common Catfish 149 seemingly exhausted state. The fishes separate slightly at this time, as is shown in Figure 16, sometimes the male half falling to one side. In this picture the eggs are entirely hidden by the anal and ventral fins of the female as she has settled down over them. The spawning here described occurred on August 13, 1933, but on the two days previous more or less continued efforts were indulged in. On August 12, about a dozen eggs were actually deposited but were eaten by the parents. Between 11:15 A. M. and 2:00 P. M. on that date, the fishes went through the motions of spawning six times. While it is difficult to be certain about the identity of the sexes of these fish, it appears that the female does most of the actual incubating and the male most of the guarding, as has already been suggested by Kendall (1910). Both fishes were seen to defend their nest against other fishes, but unlike Aequidens (See Breder 1934a) showed little disposition to attack hands or other objects. Both parents were seen to incubate the eggs, although there was little of a regular exchange of labors. Occasionally both would incubate at the same time, as shown in Figure 20. This did not occur often. The efforts extended were directed more toward an actual manipula- tion of the eggs than the circulation of water over them, the latter being common in various other nest building fishes, e. g. Lepomis, Cichlasoma, Pomacentrus and Gasterosteus. Most commonly the parent fish would settle down on the eggs with the ventral fins wide- spread so as to cover the mass as well as possible. Then these fins would be paddled up and down alternately, actually striking the eggs with considerable force. In a few days, generally, this action was sufficient to loosen the mass entirely from its place of attach- ment, so that subsequent fanning caused the entire mass to slap up and down against the floor of the tank in rhythm with the fins. Sometimes this kind of motion was alternated with a swimming movement in which the long anal fin served to swirl the mass about, or even break it up. At other times the mass of eggs, or parts of it, would be taken into the mouth and ''chewed” in such a fashion as to roll them over and over, after which they would be ejected with considerable violence. Rarely at such times would the cluster be swallowed. This has also been observed by Dean (1891). Sometimes parts of the cluster, or the entire set of eggs, would be ejected from the nest. After a mass of eggs was thus evicted, apparently accidentally, the fish would frequently come out and 150 Zoologica: N. Y. Zoological Society [XIX; 4 go over them with her barbels, as is shown in Figure 17. This would be repeated again and again but it appeared that the fish had no clear set of responses invoked by this condition. Nevertheless, on several occasions the eggs were later seen to be back in the nest, with the parent incubating as before. Unfortunately we have no obser- vations to show how they got there. It may be that they were trans- ported orally, as has been observed by Smith (1903) in the matter of transporting gravel, or it may be that they were incubated in place, and again accidentally knocked back into the nest. The latter seems unlikely, for only once were the fish observed to incubate eggs out of the nest, although they continually returned to stroke them with their barbels. Both Eycleshymer (1901) and Kendall (1910) mention much variation in the attitude of the parent fishes to their eggs. A typical brooding posture of Ameiurus is given in Figure 18. In this case the fish has an unusually large batch of eggs. During incubation prodigious yawns are frequent. At one time these were counted and found to occur about once every fifteen minutes or less. With the large mouth capacity that this species has, it may well be that the syringe action of this yawning aids in renewing the water in the immediate vicinity of the eggs. A typical yawn is illustrated by Figure 19. The continued and strong activity indulged in by Ameiurus in manipulating the eggs may be shown to have a distinct and necessary function. One of the batches of eggs was removed to the laboratory and the following results obtained: All eggs died in less than twenty-four hours in standing water (at the same tempera- ture). All but the few outermost eggs of a cluster died in a fiow of water at least equal to that used in trout culture. Eggs lived and hatched when placed in a flask with an inlet reaching to the bottom and with a flow strong enough to keep them in a constant state of violent tumbling. This, a remarkable condition in a fish marked by its ability to survive low oxygen concentrations, is well-known to fish culturists. Eycleshymer (1901) had similar difficulty with the eggs. It does, however, supply an adequate explanation of the violent activity of the parents. Possibly the heavy, gelatinous coating of these eggs serves to protect them from mechanical injury, on one hand, and on the other causes a demand for an unusual amount of aeration. These eggs were found to be as susceptible to daylight as trout eggs, possibly more so, which is certainly not to be 1935] Breder: Reproductive Habits of Common Catfish 151 unexpected considering the normal positions of catfish nests. No actual counts were made of the eggs, but their numbers were obvious- ly close to those given by others, such as given in Table II. The parents of those eggs removed for the preceding studies, continued for ten days to incubate the site from which the eggs had been taken. Their performance was identical, especially the ventral fin paddling, with that displayed toward the eggs themselves, and distinctly different from the earlier described cleaning activity. It is to be especially noted that incubation ceased the same day that the eggs hatched in the laboratory. It would seem that the spawn- ing act “wound up’’ some mechanism that then simply ran down. The fresh cleaning of the nest for the second spawning did not begin until about two weeks later. Table I gives the details of the data here referred to, the spawning entered as item “6” being the one referred to above. After the eggs hatch the activity of paddling stops and the parent fish are more gentle in their movements, confining themselves mostly to swimming about over the young that huddle in a compact mass encumbered by large yolk sacs. They keep up a constant beat- ing of their colorless tails and as they advance manage to “skate” about on the bottom to a certain extent. By the time they are able to rise off the bottom they have attained most of their coal black coloration. When this time comes the young fish rise in a cloud that often has been described. The parents then endeavor to keep them in a compact school by swimming about, more or less in circles, as shown in Figure 21, and as described by Mellen (1926). The tropisms of the young Ameiurus themselves also tend to keep them together. These have been studied in much detail by Bowen (1930) and (1932) for Ameiurus melas (Rafinesque) who found they were almost entirely visual. As the present author has noted nothing at variance with those studies, the details of the features need not be discussed here. It may be pointed out, however, that the eye seems to become a much less important organ with age, as has already been indicated for the adults. A study of this change should be interest- ing. As the young fish grow and become more adventurous with the weakening of the early tropisms, the parents, in the aquarium at least, catch them in their mouths and return them to the school. Probably in a state of nature most of them escape parental solicitude about this time, but in confinement we found them all dying at this 152 Zoologica: N. Y. Zoological Society [XIX; 4 point. This is practically identical with the observations of Smith and Harron (1904). The conclusion that the young fish were victims of too much and continued handling by over-zealous parents could not be avoided, especially since on another spawning the removal of the parents allowed the young to develop with only nominal loss. An item of behavior valuable in a state of nature would thus have to be considered lethal in the relatively close confines of an aquarium. The data concerning spawning, temperatures and related items, as found in the literature, are given in Table II for comparison with the present data. Although there is good general agreement through- out, it will be noted that the spawning dates of the New York Aquarium observations are considerably later than any of the others. This is apparently due to the fact that the water reaches a suitable temperature at a later date because of the extremely large, deep lakes serving New York City as reservoirs, and the depth in the ground of the water mains. The observations of others refer either to small ponds, the shallow margins of lakes, or aquaria with a normally warmer water supply. Further, the temperatures given by others are all actually higher than those found in the present case with one exception — Greeley (1930). A slow rise to about 21° evidently permits spawning which might otherwise take place at a relatively rapid rise to about 25.° Moreover, it is to be noted that Hildebrand and Towers (1929) examined a 235 mm. female from Greenwood, Tennessee, taken on August 27, that contained about 3,000 ovarian eggs of about 1.25 mm. in diameter. As they suggest, there may be a much larger spread to the spawning season than generally assumed. On the other hand, the single record of spawning in a lower temperature than found at the Aquarium is well to the north, in the cooler waters of the Lake Champlain region. Comparison with Opladelus. The literature contains no description of the reproductive habits of the related but much larger mud-cat Opladelus olivaris (Rafinesque). Presumably, they would be rather similar to those of Ameiurus. It is with considerable satisfaction, therefore, that it can be reported at this time that there is a great similarity. The follow- ing descriptive matter and pertinent illustrations have been made available through the kindness and generosity of Mr. Walter H. Chute, Director of the John G. Shedd Aquarium in Chicago. A TABLE II. COMPARISON OF REPRODUCTIVE DATA ON AMEIURUS NEBULOSUS. 1935] Breder: Reproductive Habits of Common Catfish 153 W «3 Size of Eggs 1/8" 3 mm. No. of Eggs 2,000 ± 50-500 + 30.000 ± ovarian 500- 2.000 ± Temp. ° C. 0 O t> q IP ^*1 1111 1 1 O oC^ o lOoC^l loi 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 *^112 t)h d , g ^ 2 01 -S ^ 0'S ^o.^w2hg w <1 W 0 154 Zoologica: N. Y. Zoological Society [XIX; 4 pair of this species successfully spawned at that institution in 1934 and the following remarks are quoted directly from Mr. Chute’s notes on the case. The photographs are the work of Mr. Loren Tutell of the Shedd Aquarium staff. 'Muly 6 & 7. Activity in the mud catfish tank was first noticed. This tank contains two mud catfish, each about four feet long, five large alligator gars, one blue catfish about the same size as the mud catfish, and five sturgeon ranging in size from two to six feet. The catfishes selected a corner of the tank close to the glass. Both of them used their tails and mouths to make a hollow in the sand down to the bare gravel and rock. The completed nest was approxi- mately five feet in diameter. ‘‘On the 7th they were seen several times in an embrace, sug- gestive of the embrace used by the Bettas, although the male fish was unable to completely encircle the female. I did not see this embrace but was told about it after the eggs had been laid. “July 8. When the attendant came to work at eight o’clock in the morning he found the eggs in the nest. They apparently had been laid some time that morning. They were adhesive and made a mass in the bottom of the nest approximately sixteen inches in diameter, six inches thick in the center tapering to the thickness of one egg on the outside edge of the mass. “In appearance the egg mass suggested a tapioca pudding. The individual eggs were just about the size of boiled tapioca and the yolks of the eggs gave the entire mass a custard color which heightened the similarity. Both parents were hovering over the nest. “July 10. Male only was guarding the nest. When one of the big gars swam close to the nest the male would swim under the gar and push upward until the gar was near the surface of the six foot deep tank. If one of the little sturgeon approached the nest the catfish would chase him clear to the other end of the tank, which is thirty feet long. When the female attempted to approach the nest the male bit her and chased her into a hole under a log in the back- ground. It was interesting to note that he fought fishes of his own size or smaller and gently ‘eased’ the larger fishes away without starting an argument. “We took out about four hundred of the eggs from the nest and measured one cubic inch, which counted 175 eggs. On this basis I estimated the total mass to be in the vicinity of 100,000 eggs. The few eggs that we took out were put into a glass bowl and hung under running water. “ In caring for the eggs, the male would settle over the mass and agitate the eggs strongly by using the ventral fins alternately. At the same time he repeatedly vibrated his anal fin, creating a current 1935] Breder: Reproductive Habits of Common Catfish 155 of water which washed away the dirt loosened by the beating of his ventral fins. The entire mass would shake like a bowl of jelly and at times he kneaded the eggs so hard that the edges of the egg mass would rise an inch or two above the bottom. “In the later stages of development, when the eggs started to hatch, the young fishes would be swept away from the egg mass and lodged in the crevices around the edges of the nest. “July 12. Some of the eggs in the bowl under running water started to hatch. The young fish were very tiny and weak. A number of egg shells were noticeable in the egg mass in the nest, but no young were visible. “July 13. The young in the bowl were all dead and the remain- ing eggs in the bowl were turning white. The eggs in the nest were starting to hatch and the male was kept very busy between agitating the mass and chasing off the sturgeon, which apparently sensed the fact that food was near. “July 15. Eggs were hatching very rapidly in the nest. Ap- parently the current caused by the agitation of the fins of the male carried off the young fish but left the adhesive shells still adhering to the mass. The largest sturgeon kept raiding the nest and eating all the young that were near the edge of the nest, so we removed a thousand or more young fishes. Some of these were put into a re- serve tank with a depth of forty inches of water and about five hun- dred were put into an ordinary trout hatching box which had a layer of sand on the bottom. “July 16. The egg mass had entirely disappeared. The male was still guarding several hundred of the young in a corner of the nest up against the wall. The young fish put in the reserve tank and the trout hatching trough had gathered in groups with all their tails rapidly vibrating in the same direction. “July 18. Pigment beginning to’ develop in the young. Very prominent blood vessels, bright red in color, encircling the yolk, giving the entire mass of young a pinkish color. “July 19. Male still guarding the nest with about two hundred young. The young fish in the reserve tank and trout trough much more active and showing signs of growth. “July 20. Male still on the nest guarding a few young that are still in crevices among the rocks. The young fish under observa- tion in the reserve tank and trough are becoming quite active, occa- sionally swimming short distances but always returning to the group. The head is exceptionally well developed and when viewed from above is as wide as the yolk sac. They are now recognizable as cat- fishes, as the maxillary barbels are about 1/16 inch long and easily discernible. Black pigment is starting to gather on the head, and on a saddle-like spot across the back and on the yolk, but the tails are still pale pink/' 156 Zoologica: N. Y. Zoological Society [XIX; 4 A comparison of the above remarks with the previous ones on Ameiurus reveals them to be nearly identical in their major aspects: the manner of working over the eggs; the failure of them to hatch successfully under ordinary running water; the matter of embracing several times before the eggs flow; the period of incubation, and time to free swimming. The items not in apparent agreement are discussed separately below. The embrace as described for Opladelus would appear to be rather different, although Mr. Chute in a subsequent communica- tion emphasized the fact that he did not personally see this act but based his description on the account of one of his employees. It may even be, however, that this is the normal silurid mating posi- tion, and that the position observed in Ameiurus at the New York Aquarium may be a distortion of it, because of the close confinement of the cavity which these fishes always choose for spawning purposes. The spawning of Opladelus occurred in an aquarium containing other fishes, whereas we have had success only where pairs were isolated. It is to be noted, however, that only one pair of the spawning species was present. At this writing no attempt has yet been made to see if Ameiurus only resents its own kind. Although the Opladelus were large, “about four feet long,” they were in a very large aquarium, 30 feet long, 6 feet deep and 10 feet wide. On the other hand the present studies were made for most part on fish one foot long in a tank 5 feet long, 4 feet deep and 3 feet wide. These proportions are not at great mathematical variance either as to bottom area or volume per length of fish. However, these matters do not usually correlate along a straight line, the factor for absolute size causing a considerable deflection in tanks so relatively small in relation to the fishes. The rejection by the male of the services of the female is unlike the behavior of Ameiurus studied in detail by the author. It may be pointed out, however, that there is probably considerable individual variation in this matter. In spawning No. 10 of Table I, one of the fish drove and succeeded in keeping the other away from the nest. The driver was believed to be the male. This pair had both incu- bated the prior batch of eggs in the same site. No. 9 of Table I. It is noted, moreover, that in Ictalurus, according to Shira (1917a and b), only the male incubates. 1935] Breder: Reproductive Habits of Common Catfish 157 Comparison with other Nematognathi. So far as known there are but four basic methods of reproduc- tion employed in the entire order Nematognathi. There is the method involving the incubation of the eggs in a nest, as here described and illustrated for Ameiurus nebulosus and Opladelus olivaris, which may be taken as basically typical of the entire ameiurid aggregation. Other species are essentially the same, Ryder (1883), and Roller (1926), and Greeley (1929). The only other method known to be employed by the typical ''naked’' cats is that of oral incubation which seems to be confined to the ariids, and there is some reason to suppose that it may be true of nearly all those species. Semon (1899) describes the nesting of Hexanematich- thys australis (Gunther), which is the only apparent exception. This fish makes a circular nest as a cavitation in the gravel of rapidly flowing streams in which the eggs are deposited. They are then buried in a mound of gravel. Tandanus tandanus (Mitchell), one of the plotosids, also of Australia, Stead (1906) and Hale (1920), like- wise builds a nest in the form of a mound. The other habits are apparently very similar to those of Ameiurus, including the oral transportation of gravel and the fanning movements to remove detritus. Also both sexes attend the nest. According to Bowers (1913) and Shira (1917a and b), the spawning of Ictalurus punctatus (Rafinesque) is essentially similar to that of Ameiurus except that only the male tends the eggs. With the exception of Silurus glanis which is discussed subsequently, the two other methods seem to be confined to the much more specialized and generally "armored” cats. One of these is that of sticking separate adhesive eggs on plants, and the other that of carrying the attached eggs to the ventral surface of one of the parents. Since the data on these various specializations are inadequate, as yet, to the making of truly significant comparisons, they are simply mentioned in passing. The literature is large and will not be fully discussed at this time, as for most part the descriptions are fragmentary. Gudger (1916), (1918) and (1919) gives all the important references on oral incuba- tion in the ariids to that time. These are not included here. Since then many others have been mentioned as displaying oral incubation; e. g., Pellegrin (1919), Mane (1929), Herre (1926), Aldaba (1931), Delsman and Hardenberg (1934) and Hardenberg (1935). See also Lee (1931). It has been shown that the Aspridinidae allow the eggs 158 Zoologica: N. Y. Zoological Society [XIX; 4 to become attached to the ventral surface, and certain of the Cal- lichthyidae lay separate adhesive eggs. For abundant references to nematognath reproduction, see Dean (1916). Oral incubators. For present purposes it is sufficient to point out that the repro- ductive habits of Ameiurus involve both excavation of gravel by use of the mouth, and taking into the mouth the developing eggs, pre- sumably for purposes of cleaning and aerating and possibly for returning dislodged eggs to the nest. This would clearly seem to be a necessary forerunner to the establishment of oral incubation. Gudger (1918), on a basis of the literature, has already indicated that' such habits might well be expected to lead to oral incubation. After giving his evidence Gudger writes as follows: ‘'It seems hardly necessary to argue the question as to the origin of the habit of oral gestation after the presentation of the facts above given. In the mind of the present writer there is no doubt that having begun by taking up the eggs and young for purposes of transportation, the fish have presently learned to retain them for longer periods of time; we have a record of at least one minute’s retention; and as the fish that would retain their young even for short spaces of time and transport them to safer localities are more likely to leave descendants, through the action of natural selection, these fish and this habit will be perpetuated. Hence we may conjecture that as time has gone on the habit of retention has become more and more fixed until finally oral gestation has become an established habit.” With the general idea expressed, this author of course concurs. The chief purpose in mentioning it here is for comparison with other habits also fore- shadowed in ameiurid reproduction to be discussed later. It may also be mentioned at this place that there is need of a reconsideration of all the data concerning oral incubation and its origin, since the literature is full of inadequate and misleading statements, a con- siderable number of which are simply untrue. A single example may serve by way of illustration. Even Gudger (1918) mentions without criticism the description of Carbonnier (1874) of oral incubation in Fundula cyprinodonta, which fish Gill (1906) referred to Umbra pygmaea. Since all three species of Umbra stick their separate eggs securely on some object, such as a rock or plant, Carbonnier, it would seem, had some other fish, perhaps not even North American 1935] Breder: Reproductive Habits of Common Catfish 159 as he thought. Abbott (1874), (1890) was familiar with the breeding of Umbra pygmaea; Anon. (1918) and Gray (1923) described it in aquaria, and the present author robbed the nests of Umbra for developmental studies, Breder (1933a). With conditions of which the above serves as an example, it is clear that unsupported state- ments regarding oral incubation require more than the usual critical examination, and should be carefully checked before acceptance. The development of oral incubation in the nematognaths would seem thus to be decidedly parallel to that found in the Cichlidae, as already discussed by Breder (1934a). In the present case the prog- ress is clearly paralleled by unrelated structural changes, and change in habitat. The direction of evolution can scarcely be questioned in this case, with the curious chondocranium of the ariids that certainly was derived from some ameiurid-like ancestor. See Gregory (1933). Likewise the development of a marine habit is certainly secondary in the Nematognathi, and even yet their invasion of the sea can only be considered a weak one, since all the Ariidae are hardly more than estuarine. The building of the ameiurid type of nest in tidal and usually muddy waters could hardly be a successful method. The largely mud flat habitat described by Gudger (1918) for Felichthys certainly would be unfriendly to such a nest, as he clearly indicated. Furthermore, this catfish could scarcely be expected to defend its eggs successfully against marauding marine crustaceans, whereas possibly the worst that Ameiurus has to con- tend with is Cambarus. Marine Ashes that do build nests somewhat comparable to those of Ameiurus, generally use a substantial retreat that renders protection relatively easy; e. g., Opsanus, Pholis or Pomacentrus leucostictus. Other forms use other methods. For example, more numerous eggs may be produced ; they may be pelagic or situated in some relatively inaccessible place. Such a situation might be up from the bottom on a smooth vertical surface, as in the case of Pomacentrus leucoris, Breder and Coates (1933). Further- more, these latter do not live in mud flat environments. In this connection information on the reproduction of Plotosus should be valuable. The eggs of orally incubating species are comparatively larger than those of related nest building species in cases studied by the author. These include the Cichlidae, Breder (1934), the Nematog- nathi and the Labyrinthidae; the orally incubating Betta picta 160 Zoologica: N. Y. Zoological Society [XIX; 4 (Cuvier and Valenciennes) having larger eggs than the nesting Betta splendens Regan. Breder (1933b) and (1934b). This latter case will be discussed in a subsequent communication. The in- creased size of the egg of Felichthys is an extremely striking case. Gudger (1919) gives the average diameter as about 20 mm. The egg of Ameiurus, on the other hand, is about 3 mm. In the other two cases mentioned the orally incubating fishes have egg diameters about twice that of their nest building relatives, in species of com- parable sizes. The problem of this shift to larger and proportionately fewer eggs is not readily explained. In each case the nest builders could hardly engulf all their eggs in a normal spawning. Gudger (1919) gives 55 eggs as the maximum he found for Felichthys, and certainly the ovaries of a female could hardly produce many more at one time. Compare this with the size of the egg masses of Ameiurus shown in the accompanying photographs. Figures 20 and 21 are especially pertinent. Semon (1899) states that Arius australis lays eggs about one-eighth of an inch in diameter. These are much smaller than any other known ariid eggs and this is the only species definitely known to be not an oral incubator. It would seem that there is less wastage of eggs in the oral incubation method. Consequently, following the well-known reduc- tion of young in proportion to the hazards of the species, it may be that the need for more numerous eggs has disappeared. Since there is no indication of a reduction in the size of the ovary, or any seem- ingly reasonable need of such, the potential ovarian activity would presumably remain about the same. This in turn might go to the production of eggs of increased size. This suggestion is the equiva- lent of saying that in some way the need of less numerous offspring is involved in not only the production of fewer but larger offspring. Certainly, in a broad phylogenetic sense at least, such is true of vertebrates generally. Gudger (1918) takes the opposite view, i. e., that the increased egg size has encouraged oral incubation. He writes: ‘'Let it be re- called that these eggs are of enormous size (the average diameter of 327 eggs being 19.5 mm.) and that when in middle embryonic stages they are very attractive to the eye because of their blood-red vascular yolk investment. For these reasons, if laid like other fish eggs are, they could hardly be expected to escape the eyes of marauding fishes, but if any were so fortunate they would almost certainly be 1935] Breder: Reproductive Habits of Common Catfish 161 eaten by crabs, those scavengers from which practically nothing escapes. The result would be the inevitable extinction of the species. These catfish spawn and spend the hatching season on mud flats. If the eggs were discharged on such bottoms they would (because of their great weight, averaging 3.5 grams) sink into the mud and be smothered. To avoid these various dangers, these fish have to do one of two things to insure their perpetuity, ^. e., to practice mouth gestation or to lay eggs in nests which are guarded by one or both the parents. Some fresh- water catfishes have adopted the latter habit; the gaff -topsail the former.’’ Since there is concurrence between Gudger and the present author, that the ariid type of reproduction was derived from some habit similar to the ameiurud type, his above quoted view must be able to explain away the following ob- jections to be accepted as valid: 1. Since Ameiurus successfully defends its large mass of eggs against marauders, there is no particular reason why it could not equally defend eggs the size of Felichthys (if amounting to the same total bulk) in an identical environment. The color differences can- not be significant, since bright red eggs are not more visually evident than cream white ones, if as much, under such conditions. Then too, there is the question of the importance of the various receptors to the enemy species. 2. If Ameiurus attempted to reproduce in the environment of Felichthys, the relatively small size of its eggs would confer no immunity from suffocation on a mud flat not possessed by Felichthys. In other words, size of egg (of identical type) has little to do with suffocation in the same mud. Both types of eggs sink rapidly in sea water. Stating it another way, while it is agreed that nest building is out of the question on mud flats, it is objected that an increased egg size may have led to the development of oral incubation. On the other hand the present view, which refers increased size to a need for fewer eggs because of better general protection, does not suffer from these same objections. This is given added support by the fact that other oral incubators have not resorted to mud flat environ- ments, although in each case there is some size increase and number reduction. Conorhynchus nelsoni Evermann and Goldsborough, an oral incubator of Mexico, has been referred to the Pimelodinae. At this 162 Zoologica: N. Y. Zoological Society [XIX; 4 writing we can see no reason for not considering it an ariid. The nares are as closely approximated as in many in that group (accord- ing to the type figure) and the adipose fin is too short for the former. Dr. G. S. Myers, of the U. S. National Museum, kindly examined the type specimen and stated in a personal communication that it “is an undoubted ariid, probably of a new genus.’' Dr. C. L. Hubbs, who has recently collected this species, also writes in a personal com- munication that he is of a like opinion. Hardenberg (1935) describes and figures the hook-like thicken- ing of the inner part of the female’s ventral fins in Arius maculatus (Thunb.), and suggests that “this is a sexual character, which has something to do with spawning and mating. It is clear that the male is attached by these hooks and the fertilization of the eggs takes place perhaps inside the body of the female or more probably outside the body just at the moment when they leave the genital opening.” However true this may be, it is certain that most of the ariids have some such secondary character. At the New York Aquarium the females of Galeichthys milherti (C. & V.) develop similar structures which are apparently resorbed every fall. Thus far we have been unable to induce reproduction, however, in this species. Dr. Hubbs found similar structures in Conorhynchus” but could not find them in Arius aqua-dulce Meek. Occasionally a female Ameiurus nehulosus shows a slight ridge that may be an abortive form of this structure. Alleged gastric incubation, Devincenzi (1933) in a most interesting paper describes a con- dition in Tacky sums barbus (Lacepede) which he interprets as establishing what he terms “incubation gastrica.” He found males with eggs in their stomachs in various stages of development. His- tologic sections of the stomach walls showed an absence of the folds in the mucosa normal to non-breeding fish, and a general thinning of the stomach wall. This he interprets as representing a cessation of the digestive function while the eggs are so carried. He believes that this condition was responsible for the alleged viviparity in such fishes by early workers; e. g., Schomburgk (1841). In this latter view we are in complete accord but cannot admit the fact of gastric incubation. The proper interpretation of the conditions that Dr. Devincenzi describes is believed to be as follows: 1935] Breder: Reproductive Habits of Common Catfish 163 It is well known that various orally incubating fishes will fre- quently swallow their eggs when frightened. This is especially apt to be the case when such fishes are caught in a net or otherwise handled. In fact one of the greatest difficulties in the aquarium breeding of various orally incubating cichlids, and orally incubating species of the labyrinthine genus Betta, is their tendency to swallow their eggs on fright. It is consequently not surprising that some of Devincenzi's fishes swallowed their eggs. It is to be especially noted that he also describes oral incubation in the same species. Apparent- ly not all of his specimens swallowed their eggs. One could hardly expect a single species to show two methods of incubation. Further, it is inconceivable that a single kind of egg could survive in the well aerated mouth cavity and also in the relatively anerobic stomachic pouch. In reference to the latter, a figure is given by Devincenzi which purports to show that the stomach has an unusual degree of vascularization. This is unconvincing, since many fish stomachs of diverse species possess an even greater supply of blood vessels and are found to contain nothing more unusual than a large amount of food. It is to be particularly noted that the first feeding after a fast in most fishes will induce a marked distention of the blood vessels in the stomach wall. The finding of eggs in various stages of develop- ment, in different individuals, interpreted as an accidental ingestion, indicates the advancement of the eggs at the time of swallowing and has no bearing on their time of entry. It may be noted that whole eggs are rather resistant but as the fish were either preserved and later studied, or examined fresh, the effects of digestion would be slight, especially in a stomach that has not contained food for some time. The histological differences shown in the stomach walls are only those to be seen between a normal functioning fish stomach, and one which has been under starvation for some time and then stretched by cramming with food. A close examination of the photographs of the sections show all the cellular elements present in both. The functional stomach in a relaxed condition shows the folds normally present, while in the stomach filled with eggs these are flattened out and the sac itself, because of stretching, shows thinner walls. A remarkable feature of the fish stomach in this connection is the changes that it undergoes during starvation. A more or less bulky sac reduces typically to be almost cord-like in structure and stretches 164 Zoologica: N. Y. Zoological Society [XIX; 4 as a thin membrane on the first feeding, subsequently thickening to its original condition. At this time the vascularization is especially evident. It is just these features that Devincenzi shows in his figures but on which he places an interpretation with which we cannot agree. The question might be raised as to whether it is possible for such fish to regurgitate the eggs after danger has passed, thus using the stomach temporarily for protection. While there is no observa- tional or other data on such a possibility, there is certainly no reason to imagine that such might be the case. Other fishes of many kinds have never been known to regurgitate eggs once swallowed. These include all forms that have been personally observed in any way to manipulate their eggs with the mouth. They include Ameiurus, herein discussed, a variety of cichlids both nest building and orally incubating, a variety of labyrinth fishes both nest building and orally incubating, as well as a scattering variety of other forms, such as nandids, centrarchids and pomacentrids. Theoretically considered there is furthermore no likely reason why a fish carrying eggs in its mouth could escape any faster with them in its stomach. It of course could be imagined that respiration might be a little more free but, at this time, such a concept is pure speculation. It seems more likely that an involuntary gulp, on fright, places the eggs in a posi- tion beyond recall. At least this is the impression derived from other species of oral incubaters in aquaria, although obviously such a question is difficult of experimental verification. Eggs adherent to abdomen. While it might be straining a point to compare ameiurid repro- duction with that of the nematognaths that attach their eggs to their ventral surface, such as Aspredo, (Platystacus) Cuvier and Valenciennes (1842), Green (1858), and Wyman (1859a and b), Bunocephalus, Bloch (1837), there are nevertheless certain suggestive features. It has been shown in this paper both by descriptions of detailed acts and by photographs, that Ameiurus literally lies on its eggs. See, especially. Figures 18 and 19. In addition this species strikes its eggs violently with its ventral fins as previously discussed. The eggs are of themselves distinctly adhesive. In the case of Ameiurus the integument is extremely slippery and no adhesion is possible. In the case of Aspredo, however, the mucus production is 1935] Breder: Reproductive Habits of Common Catfish 165 slighter, as is also true of the more fully armored loricariates. This statement is not meant to imply that this condition alone explains the egg carrying of Aspredo, as it has been shown that the specialized integument is structurally modified to accommodate the eggs. See the work of Vaillant (1898). However, the lack of excessive slime production must have preceded it, since it is difficult to see how any fish integument bathed in the particularly slippery mucus of the naked cats could function in the manner described for that of Aspredo. The actual conditions in this case involve a structural change of the integument, and differ from the habit of oral incubation in that the development of the latter has so far not been shown to be accom- panied by any functional change in structure. It may be, however, that the structural change in the integument may be induced by the adhesion of the eggs. If a means could be devised to cause the eggs of Ameiurus to adhere to the ventral surface of the fish, a study of the histological changes of the skin, if any, should be extremely illuminating. It has been suggested by Eggert (1930) that Macrones gulio Ham. Buch. may carry its eggs on its ventral surface in folds on the abdomen. This is based on anatomical and histological data. Females with advanced ova were found to have these folds highly vascularized and large, whereas in unripe fish they were small. As Eggert suggests, these structures at the very least are probably as- sociated with the reproductive habits, even if not as above indicated. They may represent the first step in this direction toward egg carry- ing, so highly developed in the aspridinids. Eggs cast free. Among the various specialized members of the Nematognathi there are several that are reported to deposit separate adhesive eggs. Such forms as Astrohlepus, Otocinclus and Corydoras are known to breed in that fashion. This may be considered either as the reten- tion of a primitive character, since it is typical of the generality of both the Heterognathi and Eventognathi, or as the secondary development of it. If the first possibility be considered, it follows that these fishes, not especially close to one another, all by-passed the ameiurid type of reproductive activity. Unfortunately, we do not know enough about the details of the reproductive habits of 166 Zoologica: N. Y. Zoological Society [XIX; 4 these fishes to find useful clews. However, since the nematognaths are all possessed of a highly specialized musculature of the pelvic appendages, we have some grounds for tentative speculation. The relatively primitive Ameiuridae make use of these ventral fins, as earlier described, in a distinctly definite manner in their reproduc- tive activity. It so happens that both Astrohlepus and Otocinclus have highly developed ventrals which they use for non-reproductive purposes. Astrohlepus marmoratus is capable of scaling eighteen foot walls by means of its suctoral mouth and ventral fins, Johnson (1912), and A. longifilis is probably capable of similar performances. At least it was seen to use its ventrals to a considerable extent in climbing, Breder (1926). Otocinclus grasps more or less vertical plant stems between its ventrals in aquaria and rests for long periods, holding on in that fashion. Corydoras, on the other hand, with some- what similar ventrals, so far as the author is aware, uses them as specialized organs in reproductive activity only, Carbonnier (1880a and b) and Vipan (1886). At such times they are cupped together to act as an inseminating basket for holding the eggs during fertili- zation, which eggs are then cast off to adhere separately to plants. Hoplosternum, according to Vipan (1886) and Hancock (1828), builds an elaborate nest of froth and plant fragments at the surface as does Callichthys, Devincenzi (1933). Carter and Beadle (1931) confirm this and give excellent illustration of the nest of Hoplosternum, If the assumption is made that these fishes passed through some ameiurid-like breeding pattern and then discarded it, the above use of the specialized ventral musculature becomes understandable. They then take on a new useful function, differing in each group, when the original one is no longer applicable. The only other inter- pretation would be that the primitive nematognaths used their pe- culiar pelvic musculature for some purpose we know nothing about, and that it has simply been developed to a scattered variety of uses. This would be hard to establish, and it is rather difficult to imagine what type or use there might be, considered as a starting point, that would be simpler than the paddling movements of Ameiurus. Floating nests of froth. As has already been indicated, Hoplosternum constructs a float- ing nest of froth. The most recent and full description of this type of nesting has been given by Carter and Beadle (1931) for H. litorale 1935] Breder: Reproductive Habits of Common Catfish 167 Hancock. This species spawns in the nearly anerobic waters of the Paraguayan Chaco. They write of the region: “Rain at the begin- ning of summer is the stimulus for the breeding of many of the fishes of these swamps {Lepodisiren, Symbranchus, Hoplias, etc.) and of many of the amphibia. After the rain the water is often cooler than usual, but rapidly heats in the following days. The amount of oxygen is not greatly altered by the rain except for a short tirtie and at the surface. The most definite abnormality of the water at this time is the less amount of carbon dioxide in it, but this also passes rapidly. Possibly a combination of all these changes provides the stimulus for reproduction.” Under these conditions Hoplosternum constructs a raft about one foot in diameter of floating weeds and other aquatic plants. The mass of eggs is placed at the center of the underside of the raft and “the eggs are glued together and to the raft by a secretion which also prevents the materials of the raft from falling apart. Below the eggs and covering the whole of the underside of the nest is a mass of foam, probably made by the fish by taking air in at the mouth and bubbling it out again. The nest is guarded by the parent fish which is always to be found swimming below it, but it is readily deserted if the fish is disturbed in any way.” Unfortunately, the sex of the guarding parent is not designated. Little can be said regarding the possible evolution of this bubble blowing habit, but it may be pointed out that it also occurs in other fishes and a similar construction is made by several genera of frogs; e. g., Eupemphix and Leptodactylus. Of the fishes, only one belongs to the Ostariophysi, the African characin, Hydrocyanoides odoe (Bloch), which was first described by Budgett (1901). A variety of the entirely unrelated labyrinthine fishes, such as Betta, Macropodus, Ctenops, Colisa, et cetera, erect such constructions. An eel, Fluta alba, has also been credited with such a habit by Smith (1934) but needs confirmation. Living as it does in association with various froth-making labyrinth fishes, it seems likely, to the present author at least, that the observations may actually refer to a raid on such a labyrinth nest by a family of young Fluta still under the influence of their parent. This interpretation would imply parental care on the part of this eel, but not froth nest construction. All these nests are to be found in waters of low oxygen content, and however they arose are apparently one solution to the problem 168 Zoologica: N. Y. Zoological Society [XIX; 4 of reproduction under such conditions. A remarkable feature of them is the essential similarity that they all bear one another. Ancestral habits. Thus far only the types of reproduction that the ameiurid habit may have led to have been considered. If we attempt to trace back- ward, to ascribe a point of origin to the breeding activity of Ameiurus, the evidence is very scant and unconvincing. Probably scattering loose non-adhesive eggs which sink, is the most primitive method of reproduction in the entire ostariophysid aggregation. Since they in turn lead back to isopondyles, in which the most primitive condition is probably that of scattering loose non-adhesive eggs which float, little in the way of clews can be found. The difference between floating and sinking of eggs in this case probably is simply the matter of relative specific gravity, since the isopondyles that lay floating eggs spawn at sea, and the Ostariophysi spawn in fresh water except for the orally incubating nematognaths. This, then, may be an almost purely environmental matter. It must be pointed out in this connection, however, that the eggs of both Felichthys and Ameiurus sink rapidly in sea water. Eggs of the latter were found to sink in sea water concentrated to the high specific gravity of 1.027. Since there is no known intermediate between casting eggs, adhesive or not, and incubating them with elaborate activity, except that of simply lying with them, as in Schilbeodes, Fowler (1917), on which further observation is needed, little can be adduced. We consequent- ly can only guess what led to the origination of aerating activity in the nematognaths. Gill (1907a) discusses the nesting habits of Parasilurus aristotelis (Garman) based on Aristotle's description and the non-nesting of Silurus glanis Linnaeus, a relatively unspecialized silurid. In the latter the male simply mounts guard over the eggs, which are attached to plants. The plotosid catfishes, representing the only other invasion of the sea found in this order, are little known in regard to their repro- ductive habits. Plotosus possesses a curious gland-like structure posterior to the genital pore which is present in both sexes. Broch (1887) suggested that it might form an egg receptacle. Hirota (1895) with more data indicated that it might be a gland of some unknown function. Eggert (1929) is of the opinion that whatever its function it probably would be found to be associated with the reproductive behavior. He suggested that it might be a scent organ. On this we 1935] Breder: Reproductive Habits of Common Catfish 169 can only speculate. The plotosids invading the fresh waters of Australia have developed at least one nest builder, Tandanus, which has already been mentioned. It may be that this is a secondary acquisition of the habit, for it would seem unlikely that such a habit would be found in the marine plotosids. They sometimes are found to inhabit environments similar to those of the marine ariids, and for the reasons set forth in the discussion of them could hardly be ex- pected to build ordinary catfish nests. Otherwise they are apt to be associated with coral reefs, a type of habitat generally favorable to nesting. If the various habits of the nematognath fishes are considered in reference to phylogenetic classification, the great gaps in our knowledge become apparent. So large are these that any attempt to trace the descent of habits becomes almost hopeless at this time. However, a consideration of the known facts may nevertheless have value in pointing to possibilities and indicating desiderata for further researches. Table III gives a list of families and subfamilies TABLE III. REPRODUCTIVE HABITS OF THE NEMATOGNATHI. Classification Major Aspects op Reproduction Genera Known Diplomystidae (?) Aspkidinidae SiLURIDAE Eggs carried on ventral surface of female. Aspredo, Bunocephalus Ariinae Oral incubation by males in all marine Netuma, Arius, Osteoyenio- forms? Hexanemitichthys australis sus, Galeichthys, Hexane- builds a nest. lyiitichthys, Felichthys Callophysinae (?) — Pimelodinae (?) — Silurinae Eggs deposited on plants by Silurus. Silurus, Parasilurus Nest built by Parasilurus. Malopterurinae Oral incubation has been suggested? — Plotosinae Unknown in marine forms. Tandanus Tandanus builds a nest. Clariinae (?) — Bagrinae All build nests (?) except Macrones Ameiurus, Opladelus, Vil- which may carry eggs on ventral sur- larius, Schilbeodes, Icta- face. lurus Doradinae Builds a nest. Doras Hypopthalmidae (?) — Trichomycteridae (?) — Callichthyidae Eggs deposited on plants by Corydoras. Corydoras, Hoplosternum, Hoplosternum and Callichthys build a floating froth nest. Callichthys Loricariidae Argiinae Eggs deposited on plants. Astroblepus Plecostominae Eggs laid in holes. Ancistrus Loricariinae Eggs carried in folds of lip (male) . Loricaria Hypoptopomatinae Otocinclus may lay free eggs (?). — 170 Zoologica: N. Y. Zoological Society [XIX; 4 based chiefly on Eigenmann and Eigenmann (1890) and Boulenger (1904), which are used here chiefly for reasons of convenience. Opposite each group is given the major characteristic of the repro- ductive habits. All of these features have been mentioned in some detail in the foregoing discussion. Consequently, the suggestion of relationship of habit need only be indicated at this place. Of those forms of which there is anything known regarding reproduction, the following inferences would seem to follow. The Aspridinidae, a highly specialized offshoot of the early stem, are uniform, so far as known, regarding the carrying of eggs on the ventral surface. This, now a highly developed integumentary involvement, may have arisen from the habit of lying on the eggs in a manner similar to that seen in Ameiurus today. The Ariinae, generally considered a primitive form, although extending back to Eocene times, would nevertheless seem to have been derived from some ameiurid-like stock. This view is held by Gregory (1933), based chiefly on skull structure. Certainly at least the habit of oral incubation was derived from an ameiurid-like breed- ing habit at a time when they invaded estuarine waters. The nest building of the Hexanemitichthys australis would seem to be clearly associated with a secondary invasion of streams. This nest is a mound and to that extent differs from the excavations of theBagrinae. The Silurinae has both a nest building form, Parasilurus, and a non-nester, Silurus. On the latter there is not a great amount of data even today, which moves Long (1929) to call for more observa- tion of the common European catfish. Oral incubation has been reputed in the Malopterurinae, but the data are inadequate. Gill (1907a). Svensson (1933), studying Gambian fishes, states he could add nothing to the details of repro- duction. Nothing is known of all the marine Plotosinae except that they possess a curious gland-like organ which would seem to be associated with reproduction. Tandanus, an Australian invasion from the sea, of this group, constructs a mound. It is striking that the invasion of the fresh waters of Australia by two unrelated types of silurids should both be represented by mound-building forms. All the Bagrinae build nests consisting of excavations, so far as known, with the possible exception of Macrones which it has been suggested may carry them on the under surface. This suggestion, however, needs further study for confirmation. 1935] Breder: Reproductive Habits of Common Catfish 171 The Astroblepidae cast their eggs free, and from their relation- ships would seem to have lost rather than never had a brooding habit. The Callichthyidae have nesting and non-nesting members viz.: Callichthys, Hoplosternum, and Corydoras. The Loricariidae have some members, at least, which carry their eggs in labial folds, Steindachner (1879), Gill (1907a), Ribeiro (1918), Ihering (1928) and Devincenzi (1933): Loricaria vetula C. & V. and L. anus C. &. V. The carrying of eggs under the large everted lips of these fish may again be associated with the presumably an- cestral habit of lying on the eggs. The males alone engage in this habit and have the posterior portion of the everted lips appropriately enlarged. Many of the Loricariidae have a marked amount of sexual di- morphism. The males in some genera have enlarged bristles; e. g., Oxyloricaria, Farlowella, Ancistrus. In others the males possess dendritic appendages on the head ; e. g., Xenocara. See Regan (1904). The males of the naked Argiinae possess an elongate genital papilla. The function of these structures is not understood. Ancistrus anisitsi Eigenmann and Kennedy, according to Carter and Beadle (1931), lays its eggs in holes in banks at the edges of swamps. The eggs “are glued together by a secretion.'’ This rather suggests the ameiurid type of reproduction, but it is to be noted that the eggs must have a much lower oxygen requirement, since the waters in which they are found are notable for their low oxygen content. Furthermore, Carter and Beadle write of the eggs that “they were found to live well in dishes” which, as previously indicated, is not. true of ameiurid eggs. Comparison with Certain Cichlids. A study of the development of oral incubation in the Cichlidae, based on similar but more extensive data, has already been published by Breder (1934a). This has been referred to in the preceding sec- tion in passing, but a close comparison of the nest building habits of the two groups forms the basis of further consideration. In Table IV the chief items are listed in parallel columns for comparison. A consideration of this table will show at once that while the general pattern is fairly similar, not a single item is identical, from the details of courtship and spawning to the care of resulting young. It forms a splendid illustration of how superficially similar characters 172 Zoologica: N. Y. Zoological Society [XIX; 4 of habit may on critical examination actually be shown to be com- posed of distinctly different elements. Oral incubation can clearly be traced back to both of these reproductive types, with both in- volved in taking their eggs in their mouths but for entirely different reasons. Except for this there is no direct physical contact between eggs and parents in the cichlids, and no other habit but oral incuba- tion has been found to develop in that family. In the ameiurids there is additional and close contact with the ventral surface and the ventral fins. In this group has also developed species that carry the eggs adherent to the ventral surface, and those that employ the ventral fins as holding organs for fertilization. It is difficult to believe that all this is merely coincidental. It should be borne in mind that in Table IV the species com- pared receive their sensory impression by rather different channels. Aequidens is primarily a visual type and entirely diurnal in its habits, whereas Ameiurus is chiefly a tactile chemico-sensory type and to a considerable extent nocturnal. At least the first, third and ninth items may have to do with the different role that light plays in the lives of these two species. The second, seventh and ninth items, at least, are associated with the major receptors in each case. TABLE IV. COMPARISON OF THE REPRODUCTIVE HABITS OF AMEIURUS WITH THOSE OF THE CICHLID, AEQUIDENS LATIFRONSA Ameiurus Aequidens 1. Sex recognition 2. Spawning position 3. Location of nest 4. Nature of eggs 5. Need of aeration Tactile or chemical? Pair head in opposite directions in close contact. In a cavity. Slightly adhesive, adhere in a mass. Necessary for respiration of the eggs. 6. Roles of parents 7. Incubating method 8. Eggs taken in mouth 9. Care of young Female does most of the incu- bating, while male guards (sohietimes both incubate). Chiefly the ventral flns by means of a vertical motion aided by the anal. For churning, to insure ade- quate aeration (and clean- ing?). Kept in or close to nest, but for which there is no special con- struction. Differential behavior. Pair usually with male following female, but never in contact. Not in a cavity. Strongly adhesive, no eggs in contact. Not essential for respiration of the eggs. A protection from silting and enemies only. Male does most of the incubat- ing, while the female guards (sometimes both incubate). Chiefly the pectoral flns aided by the anal, or swimming motions of the whole body. For removal of hatching young to the “nursery” only. Removed to a shallow hole especially prepared. 1 The details of behavior of Aequidens are set forth by Breder (1934a). 1935] Breder: Reproductive Habits of Common Catfish 173 SUMMARY. Breeding Behavior. 1. Ameiurus nebulosus may spawn at least twice a season after a temperature of 21° C. has been reached. 2. A natural, sheltered hollow is cleaned out by both sexes for the reception of the eggs. In the absence of such, a hole may be dug in gravel. The gravel may be transported by the mouthful. 3. Spawning occurs within the nest cavity. So far as known the fishes face in opposite directions during spawning. 4. The eggs are constantly attended, lain upon by either or both parents, violently agitated, beaten with the ventral fins, or taken into the mouth and ejected violently. 5^ The young fish are guarded in a more gentle manner. When they are able to swim freely they are still guarded for a considerable time. The Eggs and Young. 6. The eggs are large, about 3 mm., adhesive and covered with a soft, gelatinous covering, somewhat resembling frog eggs. 7. They will not hatch away from their parents unless continu- ally agitated, in a manner approximating the activities of the parents. The oxygen requirement would seem to be unusually high, and the gelatinous envelope may account for it, while at the same time protecting the embryo from mechanical injury due to the necessary rough handling. 8. The young fish have a large yolk and are cream white in color. After about 12 days they are able to swim up from the bottom and are heavily pigmented by that time. 9. The young fish move in a dense school, kept together almost entirely by visual stimuli. 10. The reproductive habits of Opladelus are strikingly similar to those of Ameiurus. Inferences. 11. The oral gestation of the Ariidae appears to be foreshadowed in the breeding behavior of the Ameiuridae, since the latter have already established the use of their mouths for churning their eggs about. 174 Zoologica: N. Y. Zoological Society [XIX; 4 12. Neither viviparity nor gastric incubation has been satis- factorily established for the Nematognathi, both being apparently based on erroneous interpretations. 13. The adhesion of eggs to the ventral surface of the Aspre- dinidae is suggested by the position frequently assumed by the Ameiuridae in incubation. If they were not so slippery the eggs would undoubtedly adhere to their stomachs as may be the case in Macrones. This would seem to be a first step, leading to the ad- vanced condition with modified integument, as found in Aspredo. 14. The well coordinated activity of the ventral fins of Ameiums and Opladelus in working over the eggs, suggests a starting point possibly culminating in habits of those forms, such as Corydoras, that use the same fins as an inseminating basket. 15. The specialized nematognaths, such as Astrohlepus, Otocinc- lus and Corydoras, that deposit separate adhesive eggs, would seem to have passed through some breeding habit similar to that of Ameiums rather than have escaped it entirely. Since the specialized musculature of the nematognath pelvic appendages is clearly used for reproductive purposes in such relatively primitive forms as Ameiums, it would seem to be a point of origin for such now used, in the three genera mentioned, for a distinctly different purpose. 16. It thus becomes apparent that, starting with Ameiurus, a clue to all of the reproductive habits of the more advanced nematognaths may be found. Further knowledge of the details of habits as yet unknown are necessary before it will be possible to trace the full history of any single mode of reproduction. BIBLIOGRAPHY. Abbott, C. C. 1874. Note on the breeding habits of the mud-minnow. Pop. Sci. Monthly, 4: 744-745. 1890. A Naturalist’s Rambles about Home. 1-485. D. Appleton Co., New York. Adams, C. C. and Hankinson, T. L. 1928. The Ecology and Economics of Oneida Lake Fish. Roosevelt Wild Life Annals, 1 (3, 4): 235-548. Bull. N. Y. State College Forestry, 1 (4a). Aldaba, V. C. 1931. The Kanduli Fishery of Laguna de Bay. Philippine Journ. Sci. 46 (1): 29-39. 1935] Breder: Reproductive Habits of Common Catfish 175 Anonymous. 1918. Breeding habits of the American mud-minnow. Aquatic Life, 4: 12-13. Bloch, M. E. 1837. Histoire Naturelle des Poissons. 5. 3 ed. Paris. Boulenger, G. a. 1904. Fishes, systematic account of Teleostei (In the Cambridge Natural History, 7: 541-727) London. Bowen, E. A. 1930. The role of the sense organs in aggregations of Ameiurus melas. Ecol. Monographs, 1 (1): 1-35. 1932. Further studies of the aggregating behavior of Ameiurus melas. Biol. Bull., 63 (2): 258-270. Bowers, G. M. 1913. Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries for the fiscal year 1911. U. S. Bureau Fisheries: 1-69. Breder, C. M., Jr. 1926. The Locomotion of Fishes. Zoologica, 4 (5): 159-297. 1932. The Breeding of Bullheads in the Aquarium. Bull. N. Y. Z. S., 36 (4): 129-131. 1933a. The Development of the Urostyle in Umbra pygmaea (De Kay). Amer. Mus. Novitates, (610): 1-5. 1933b. On the genesis of oral incubation in fishes. [Abstr.] Anat. Rec. 67 (4) . Suppl. 62. 1934a, An experimental study of the reproductive habits and life history of the cichlid fish Aequidens latifrons (Steindachner). Zoologica, 18 (1): 1-42. 1934b. The reproductive habits of the painted Betta, a relative of the Siamese fighting fish, new to aquaria. Bull. N. Y. Zool. Soc., 37 (5) : 126-133. Breder, C. M., Jr. and Coates, C. W. 1933. Reproduction and Eggs of Pomacentrus leucoris Gilbert. Amer. Mus. Novitates, (612): 1-6. Broch, J. 1887. Tiber Anhangsgebilde des Urogenital apparatus von Knochen fischen. Zeitschr. f. wiss. Zool. 46: 532-541. Budgett, J. S. 1901. On the breeding habits of some West African fishes, with an account of the external features in development of Protopterus annectens and a description of the larva of Polypterus lapradei. Trans. Zool. Soc., London, 16: 115-136. Carbonnier, P. 1874. Le fondule {Fundula cyprinodonta) . Bull. Mensuel Societe d’ Ac- climation ser. 3 t. 1. 665-671. 1880a. Sur le Callichthys fasciatus Cuvier. Bull. Soc. Zool., France. 6: 288-290. 176 Zoologica: N. Y, Zoological Society [XIX; 4 1880b. Moeurs d’un poisson de la famille de silures le CalUchthys fasciatus Cuvier. Comp. Rend. Acad. Sci. Paris, 91: 940-942. Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., 1881, 5 ser. 7: 73-74. Carter, G. S. and Beadle, B. A. 1931. The fauna of the swamps of the Paraguayan Chaco in relation to its environment II. Respiratory adaptations in the fishes. Journ. Linn. Soc. London, 37 (252): 327-368. Cuvier, G. and Valenciennes, A. 1842. Histoire Naturelle des Poissons, 15 Paris. Dean, B. 1891. Notes on the common catfish. 19 Rep’t. N. Y. State Comm. Fisheries, 1891: 299-305. 1916. A bibliography of Fishes. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist. 3 vols. 1, A-K: 1-718; II, L-Z: 1-702; III, Index: 1-707. Delsman, H. C. and Hardenberg, J. D. F. 1934. De indische zee visschen en zeervisscherij. Batavia-Centrum 388 pp. Devincenzi, G. J. 1933. La perpetuacion de la especie en los Peces Sudamericanos. An. Mus. Hist. Nat., Montevideo 2a Ser. 4 (2): 1-28. Eggert, B. 1929. Uber den Bau der Anhangsgebilde des Geschlects apparatus von Plotosus anguillaris Bloch. Zool. Anz. 86: 3-9. 1930. Zur kenntnis der Bratfiegeorgane bei Macrones gulio Ham. Buch. Zool. Anz., 92: 130-134. Eigenmann, C. H. and Eigenmann, R. S. 1890. A revision of the South American Nematognathi or cat-fishes. Occ. Pap. Cal. Acad. Sci., 1: 1-508. Evermann, B. W. and Clark, H. W. 1920. Lake Maxinkuckee, a physical and biological survey. Dept. Con- serv. Indiana, 1: 1-660. Eycleshymer, a. C. 1901. Observations on the breeding habits of Ameiurus nehulosus. Amer. Naturalist, 35: 911-918. Forbes, S. A. and Richardson, R. E. 1909. The Fishes of Illinois. Nat. Hist. Surv. of Illinois, 3: 1-357. Fowler, H. W. 1917. Some notes on the breeding habits of local catfishes. Copeia (42): 32-36. Gill, T. N. 1906. Le fondule {Fundula cyprinodonta) of Carbonnier an Umbra. Science, 24: 818-819. 1907a. Parental care among fresh-water fishes. Rep’t. Smithsonian Instit. for 1905 (1688): 403-531. 1907b. Fishes that build nests and take care of their young. Nat. Geog. Mag. 8: 400-412. 1935] Breder: Reproductive Habits of Common Catfish 177 Girard, C. F. 1854.- Note upon a nest constructed by catfish. Proc; Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila., 1853. 6: 387. Gray, W. B. 1923. Umbra pygmaea. Aquatic Life, 7: 67. Greeley, J. R. 1929. Fishes of the Erie-Niagara Watershed. 18th Ann. Rep’t. Cons. Dept. New York for 1928: 150-179. 1930. Fishes of Lake Champlain Watershed. 19th Ann. Rep’t. Cons. Dept. New York for 1929: 44-87. Green, J, 1858. Proc. Bost. Soc. Nat. Hist., 6: 328. Gregory, W. K. 1933. Fish skulls: a study of the evolution of natural mechanisms. Trans. Amer. Phil. Soc., 23 (2): 75-481. Gudger, E. W. 1916. The gaff-topsail {Felichthys felis) a sea catfish that carries its eggs in its mouth. Zoologica, 2 (5): 123-156. 1918. Oral gestation in the gaff-topsail catfish, Felichthys felis. Pub. 252 Carnegie Instit. Wash.: 25-52. 1919. The ovary of Felichthys felis, the gaff-topsail catfish; its structure and function. Pub. 281 Carnegie Instit. Wash.: 111-128. Hale, H. M. 1920. An Australian Catfish. Aquatic Life, 5 (12): 128-129. Hancock, J. 1828. Fishes that travel on land. Edinb. New. Phil. Journ. 6: 396-397. Natizin (Froriep), 1829: 150-151. Isis (Oken) 8: 805. Hankinson, T. L. 1908. A Biological Survey of Walnut Lake, Michigan. Mich. State Board Geo. Surv. Rep’t. for 1907 (1908): 157-288. Hardenberg, j. D. F. 1935. On the Propagation of Arius maculatus (Thunb.). Natuurkundig Tijdschrift voor Nederlandsch-Indie, 91 (1): 54-57. Herre, a. W. 1926. A summary of the Philippine catfishes, order Nematognathi. Philippine Journ. Sci. 31 (3): 385-413. Hildebrand, S. F. and Towers, I. L. 1929. Annotated list of fishes collected in the vicinity of Greenwood, Miss., with descriptions of three new species. Bull. U. S. Bur. Fisheries, 43 part 2: 105-136. Hirota, S. 1895. On the dendritic appendage of the urogenital papilla of a Silurid. Journ. Coll. Sci. Imper. Univ. Tokyo, 8: 367-380. Ihering, R., Barros, C. and Planet. 1928. Rev. Mus. Paulista: 101. Sao Paulo. Johnson, R. D. 0. 1912. Notes on the habits of a climbing catfish Arges marmoratus from the Republic of Colombia. Annals N. Y. Acad. Sci. 22: 327-333. 178 Zoologica: N. Y. Zoological Society [XIX; 4 Kendall, W. C. 1904. Habits of some, of the commercial catfishes. Bull. U. S. Fish. Comm., 1902, 22: 399-415. 1910. American catfishes: habits, culture and commercial importance. Rep’t U. S. Comm. Fisheries, 1908: 3-39. Roller, 0. 1926. Ameiurus catus L. in der Donay bei wein. Zool. Anz. 68: 175-176. Lee, G. 1931. Oral gestation in the marine six-whiskered catfish, Galeichthys felis [Abstr.] Anat. Rec., 61 (1). Suppl. 60. Long, H. 1929. Der Weis {Siluris glanis). Blatt. Aquar. Terrar. Kunde 40: 419- 420. Mane, A. M. 1929. A preliminary study of the life history and habits of Kanduli {Arius sp.) in Laguna de Bay. Philippine Agriculturist, 18: 81-117. McAtee, W. L. and Weed, A. C. 1915. First list of the fishes of the vicinity of Plummer’s Island, Maryland. Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash., 28: 1-14. Mellen, I. M. 1926. Spawning habits of the bullhead catfish. Bull. N. Y. Z. S., 29 (6): 220. Mescerskij, a. D. 1887. On the breeding of Ameiurus catus in the aquarium. Bull. Soc. Sci., Moscow, 61: 118-121. Pearson, J. F. W. and Miller, E. M. 1935. Aggregations of Ameiurus natalis erehennus Jordan, the Florida fresh-water catfish. Ecology, 16 (1): 123-125. Pellegrin, J. 1919. Poissons du Tehesti, du Barkou et de I’Ennedi recoltes par la mission Tilbo. Bull. Soc. Zool. France. 44: 148-153. Regan, C. T. 1904. A monograph of the fishes of the family Loricariidae. Trans. Zool. Soc., London, 17 (3): 191-350. Ribeiro, a. de M. 1918. Lista dos peixes brasileiros do Musea Paulista Rev. Mus. Paulista, 10: part 1. Ryder, J. A. 1883. Preliminary notice of the development and breeding habits of the Potomac catfish Ameiurus alhidus (Le Sueur) Gill. Bull. U. S. Fish. Comm., 3: 225-230. SCHOMBURGK, R. 1841. The natural history of the fishes of Guiana. Jardine’s Naturalists’ Library, 32 and 38. Edinburgh. Semon, R. W. 1899. In the Australian bush and on the coast of the Coral Sea. London. 522 pp. 1935] Breder: Reproductive Habits of Common Catfish 179 Shira, a. F. 1917a. Notes on the rearing, growth and food of the channel catfish Ictalurus punctatus. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc., 46 (2): 77-88. 1917b. Additional notes on the rearing of the channel catfish Ictalurus punctatus. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc., 47 (1): 45 47. Smith, H. M. 1903. [Abstract of Smith and Harron.] Science n. s. 17: 243-244. 1934. Notes on the eggs and young of the swamp eel Fluta alba. Journ. Siam Soc. Nat. Hist. Supp. 9 (3): 300-301. Smith, H. M. and Harron, L. S. 1904. Breeding habits of the yellow catfish. U. S. Fish Comm. Bull, for 1902 (1904) 22: 149-154. Stead, D. G. 1906. Fishes of Australia. Sydney. 1, 12, 278 pp. Steindachner, F. 1879. Beitrage zur Kenntniss der Flussfische Sudamerika’s. Denkschr. Akad. Wiss. Wien, 41 (1): 151-172. SVENSSON, G. S. 0. 1933. Fresh water fishes from the Gambia River (British West Africa). Kungl. Svenska Vetenskapsakademiens Handlinger. Series 3, 12 (3): 1-102. Vaillant, L. L. 1898. Remarques sur les appendices de Bloch chez les Siluroides du genre Aspredo. Comp. Rend. Acad. Sci. Paris, 126: 544-545. ViPAN, J. A. M. 1886. Proc. Zool. Soc., London: 330-331. Wright, A. H. and Allen, A. A. 1913. The fauna of Ithaca, N. Y.: Fishes. Zoology Field Note Book: 4-6, Ithaca, New York. Wyman, J. 1859a. Some species of fishes from the Surinam River and some conditions heretofore unnoticed, under which the eggs are developed. Proc. Bost. Soc. Nat. Hist., 1856-59, 6: 268-269. 1859b. On some unusual modes of gestation. Ann. Journ. Arts and Sciences, 27: 5-13. 180 Zoologica: N. Y. Zoological Society [XIX; 4 Fig. 12 (Upper). Ameiurus nebulosus. After a site for the nest is selected, the pair of catfishes spend much time resting quietly side by side with the tails pointing out, 1933. Fig. 13 (Lower). As spawning becomes more imminent the fishes become active and circle^continually in an agitated fashion. 1933. 1935] Breder: Reproductive Habits of Common Catfish 181 Fig. 14 (Upper). Aineiurus nebulosus. Just before spawning the circle that their two bodies form flattens so that the flsh are in contact, head to tail. 1933. Fig. 15 (Lower). At the moment of egg laying. The accumulating pile of large eggs may be seen under the female. Note that the head-to-tail position is retained. 1933. 182 Zoologica: N. Y. Zoological Society [XIX; 4 Fig. 16 (Upper). Amciurus nebulosus. Immediately after spawning the fishes separate slightly and rest. In this photograph the ventral fins of the female entirely obscure the eggs. 1933. Fig. 17 (Lower). Sometimes a clump of eggs is dislodged and knocked out of the nest. Here the female is feeling them with her barbels. 1933. 1935] Breder: Reproductive Habits of Common Catfish 183 Fig. 18 (Upper). Ameiurus nebulosus. A typical pose of the female on her eggs. 1932. Fig. 19 (Lower). The yawning of the brooding fish which is characteristic and may aid in aeration. 1932. 184 Zoologica: N. Y. Zoological Society [XIX; 4 Fig. 20 (Upper). Ameiurus nebulosus. Both parents incubating at the same time. 1931. Fig. 21 (Lower). Both parents “rounding up’’ the young fish, wliich may be seen as an oval black spot between them. 1931. 1935] Breder: Reproductive Habits of Common Catfish 185 Figs. 22 and 23. Opladelus olivaris. Two typical postures of an incubating male. Note especially the application of the ventral fins to the egg mass. These two photographs were taken at the John J. Shedd Aquarium in Chicago by Loren Tutell of the staff of that institution. The other photographs reproduced in this paper, of Arneiurus nebulosus, were taken at the New York Aquarium by S. C. Dunton of the Aquarium staff. gorfe Zoologkal &mtty Scientific Publications A completely classified list of the subjects included in each of the finished volumes of Zoologica, and all other publications of the New York Zoological Society will be furnished on application. Address H. R. MITCHELL Manager t Zoological Park 185th St. and Southern Boulevard, New York City ZOOLOGICA SCIENTIFIC CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE NEW YORK ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY VOLUME XIX. NUMBER 5 SEX RECOGNITION IN THE GUPPY, LEBISTES RETICULATES PETERS C. M. Breder, Jr. New York Aquarium and C. W. Coates New York Aquarium PUBLISHED BY THE SOCIETY THE ZOOLOGICAL PARK, NEW YORK December 5, 1935 ^eto Potk Zoolosical ^octetp General Office: 101 Park Avenue, New York City (Officers! President, Madison Grant Honorary President, Henry Fairfield Osborn* Vice-Presidents, W. Redmond Cross and Kermit Roosevelt Chairman, Executive Committee, Madison Grant Treasurer, Cornelius R. Agnew Secretary, Henry Fairfield Osborn, Jr. i@oaril of tETru£(teeiEi Class ot 1936 Madison Grant, Lewis R. Morris, Archer M. Huntington, George D. Pratt,* Cornelius R. Agnew, Harrison Williams, Marshall Field, Ogden L. Mills, Vincent Astor, C. Suydam Cutting, Childs Frick, Alfred Ely (Slagg of X937 George Bird Grinnell, Frederic C. Walcott, George C. Clark, W. Redmond Cross, Henry Fairfield Osborn, Jr., George Gordon Battle, Bayard Dominick, Anson W. Hard, Robert Gordon McKay, Kermit Roosevelt, Grafton H. Pyne,* John M. Schiff ClajSs of 1938 Henry Fairfield Osborn,* Robert S. Brewster, Edward S. Harkness, Edwin Thorne,* Irving K. Taylor, Harry Payne Bingham, Landon K. Thorne, J. Watson Webb, Oliver D. Filley, De Forest Grant, H. de B. Parsons,* George F. Baker Scientific Staff W. Reid Blair, Director of the Zoological Park William T. Hornaday, Director Emeritus Charles H. Townsend, Director of the Aquarium C. M. Breder, Jr., Assistant Director, Aquarium Raymond L. Ditmars, Curator of Mammals and Reptiles William Beebe, Honorary Curator of Birds and Director of Department of Tropical Research Lee S. Crandall, Curator of Birds H. C. Raven, Prosector Charles V. Noback, Veterinarian Claude W. Leister, AssH to the Director and Curator, Educational Activities Edward R. Osterndorff, Photographer William Bridges, Editor and Curator of Publications Cbitorial Committee Madison Grant, Chairman W. Reid Blair Charles H. Townsend William Beebe George Bird Grinnell William Bridges •Deceased Zoologica, Vol. XIX, No. 5. SEX RECOGNITION IN THE GUPPY, LEBISTES RETICULATES PETERS C. M. Breder, Jr., and C. W. Coates New York Aquarium (Figs. 24 and 25) INTRODUCTION Descriptive studies of the reproductive habits of fishes comprise a large literature but analytical consideration of the factors involved is relatively scant. This paucity of critical examination is especially marked in the matter of sex recogni- tion. Those papers which do go into the subject at all are con- fined to a discussion of species in which nest building or some other intricate behavior pattern is an accompaniment of mating. In such cases the females are necessarily obliged to take some active part in the reproductive act, since they are oviparous and fertilization is coincident with the shedding of the female genital products. The species at present under consideration, Lebistes reticulatus Peters, differs from these in that it repre- sents a group of viviparous fishes in which mating takes place at a time prior to extrusion of the genital products from the female and in which the act of fertilization is successful with- out any apparent cooperation on the part of the female. Considering the findings on oviparous fishes, the actual act of recognition is based chiefly if not entirely on the difference in behavior between a female ready to spawn, and others. This appears again and again in various guises, depending on the physical equipment of the specific form and its particular mat- ing requirements. Such studies on the lamprey have been made by Young and Cole (1900) and Reighard (1903) ; on a darter by Reeves (1907) ; on a dace by Smith (1908) ; on the chubs and minnows by Reighard (1910 and 1920) ; on the log perch (1913) and on the stickleback by Wunder (1927 and 1930) ; on the 187 188 Zoologica: N, Y. Zoological Society [XIX; 5 Siamese fighting fish by Lissmann (1932) ; on a cichlid by Breder (1934) and on a sunfish by Noble (1934). In addition, various unpublished observations have been made on Cyprinidae, Siluri- dae, Labyrinthidae and Centrarchidae which indicate the same type of behavior. It is unnecessary to enter upon a full dis- cussion of sex recognition in such forms at present, and this mention is made chiefly to call attention to the differences in the mode of reproduction in such forms and the one under consideration. The fish Lehistes presents a most striking form of sexual dimorphism concerning color, pattern, body form and size. It is, in fact, much more marked than in any of the above- mentioned species that have been published on or studied. Nev- ertheless, cooperation by the female is not an apparent element. The reason for undertaking the present study was to deter- mine if the methods of recognizing a suitable mate in Lehistes differed in accordance with the physical differences from other species and with other matters concerning reproduction. These include the mode of mating, the role of sexual dimorphism, the significance of the courtship and the attitude of the female toward courting males. The mating of Lehistes may be described as follows: An active male on approaching a female usually spreads his fins widely, bends his body slightly and vibrates, accompanying this by a curious backing motion. This usually takes place slightly below and to one side of the head of the female but may occur in almost any spot relative to the female. Almost always this is interrupted by the female swimming rapidly away. In a small aquarium, with few fish, a more or less vigorous pursuit may follow. More often, however, the male is distracted by other females which he then proceeds to court. Under usual aquarium circumstances the males are generally outnumbered about two to one, as shown by Breder and Coates (1932). The behavior described above is commonly accompanied by a more or less energetic movement of the exceedingly mobile gonopo- dium to the side next to the female. This behavior may almost always be found in a tank of Lehistes. Normal, healthy males seem to be almost continually active in this regard, interrupting it only for feeding, but without considerable observation this is about all that can be usually noted in such an aquarium. 1935] Breder & Coates: Sex Recognition in the Guppy 189 Prolonged observation will reveal, however, that eventually the male gives up this procedure and directs a rather violent thrust of the gonopodium toward the genital pore of the female. A momentary contact effects the transfer of the encapsuled spermatozoa. This actual transfer of material seems only to occur after the male has slipped up to the seemingly unsuspect- ing female. Not infrequently a male may be seen to court one fish and as she flees succeed in fertilizing another and hitherto unnoticed one. No females at any time have been observed to show other than escape reactions to the male attentions. Never were they observed to evince the slightest evidence of interest in the proceedings. The significance of these elements of the reproductive act are examined in the discussion. The experimental parts of this study were directed toward the actual modus operandi of sex recognition on the part of the male Lebistes. Experimental Studies Preliminary to the experiments, males were isolated in aquaria from which they could not see other fishes for a period of at least six days, and fed adequately with Daphnia. This was done on the supposition that such confinement would insure an active '‘sex appetite,'' although it must be admitted that male guppies have never been noted by the authors to be deficient in that regard. The males were then placed in a series of ob- servation chambers, one fish to each. There were six “stalls," each large enough to hold one rectangular battery jar (5"x3"x8") completely shielded from outside interference, lighted from the top, and with a carefully screened observation peep-hole cut through one wall. To these fishes various stimuli, such as females, were introduced in different manners. For purposes of analysis the reaction of the male was considered positive when the male erected the gonopodium, vibrated the dorsal fin and displayed directly before or in the immediate vicinity of the stimulus, whether or not copulation was effected. All other activity was considered negative. The responses were noted and timed. In every case the stimulus was removed from the subject after four minutes had elapsed, except as otherwise 190 Zoologica: N. Y, Zoological Society [XIX; 5 noted. No response in that period was entered as negative. Not more than four tests of a subject were made in any one day and a period of at least thirty minutes was allowed between each experiment on any one fish. As will be further developed, this was necessary because of a peculiarly rapid conditioning that early became apparent. Reactions to female Lebistes: As is well known, male Lehistes normally court females on sight. Consequently, it is not surprising that in all cases positive reactions were secured when females were presented directly (Test 1, Table I) . Females floated in a small beaker gave less than 100% response. Of the 78 tests, 48, or 62%, elicited a positive reaction (Test 2, Table I) . Females exhibited in another aquarium placed beside the test aquarium resulted in only a 17% response (Test 3, Table I). When removed to a distance of 150 mm., no response was ob- tained (Test 4, Table I). This series of tests shows clearly that vision alone may serve to account for sex recognition in Lehistes, As a check on this, females were placed in the aquarium confined in a perforated but opaque container (Test 9, Table I), and water from an aquarium containing females was added (Test 10, Table I). Both yielded no response, indicating the lack of a possible chemical stimulation operating in sex recogni- tion. See also Table IV, which gives the data of Table I recal- culated in detail showing the behavior of individual males to their various trials. It is to be noted that the percentage of response falls from 100% to 0% in tests Nos. 1 to 4. If the average random posi- tions possible for the female in relation to the test male are plotted, a chart expressing this relationship may be constructed. Such a diagram is given in Figure 24. Thus Test 1 is practically 0 distance because of the small size of the test aquarium. Test 2 had an average distance of 50 mm. This is further complicated by the partial obscuration of vision due to the curving of the beaker as well as its position more or less above the test male, because of its being floated in the aquarium. Test 3 had an average distance of 100 mm. (center to center of the two tanks) . Test 4 similarly represents a measured distance (center to cen- ter). The line “Female Lehistes,” in Figure 24, probably thus represents merely a falling off of visual acuity with distance. 1935] Breder & Coates: Sex Recognition in the Guppy 191 This may be further demonstrated with any aquarium of Lebistes. Practically any object moved in front of such an aquarium will attract all the fishes to that side if the object is not more than 150 mm. away. This, obviously, refers to condi- tions of bright light falling in such a direction as not to cast a shadow on the aquarium. In the latter case distance of object has little to do with visibility. In conditions of poor light or slight difference between color of object and background, the distance of visibility is less. Females anesthetized with chloretone,^ lying on the bottom of the aquarium (Test 5, Table I), and suspended by a hair so that some imitative motion was possible (Test 6, Table I), both produced some response. It is perhaps remarkable that the first gave a 53% response, while the second, with motion, gave only 14%. It may be that the movements were so unlifelike that some fright was induced (?). It is to be noted that the pre- sumable exudation of the chloretone did not inhibit attempts at mating, again emphasizing the lack of a chemical element in matters of sex recognition. Freshly dead, suffocated females, direct in the test aquarium (Test 7, Table I) or in the beaker (Test 8, Table I), failed to evoke the mating reaction. In the former, three out of twelve test males attempted to feed on the dead female. At this writ- ing it is not clear just how this “food recognition’' operates, or how the difference between an anesthetized and a dead fish is detected. Reactions to other fishes: Since Lebistes have been seen to attempt to mate with other males, especially if the latter were large, and with other fishes, no tests were made with males directly in the same aquarium. Males were exhibited in the beaker (Test 11, Table I) and produced a large percentage of positive reactions, 75%, while females under the same conditions produced only 62% on the same test males. As male Lebistes are rather more active than the females, it may be that under such conditions the former are simply more conspicuous. Three foreign species — Cyprinodon, Barbus and Fundulus — tested direct and in the beaker gave rather interesting results. 1 Chloretone 1 cc. sat. sol. to 5 H2O. The reaction period averaged about two minutes and recovery occurred in about thirty minutes. No mortality or ill effects were noted. 192 Zoologica: N. Y. Zoological Society [XIX; 5 TABLE I Results of Exposures of female Lehistes under various conditions to 24 test males in 179 trials Exp. No. No. Exposure to test male of : of Tests No. Pos. No. Neg. % of Tests Positive 1 Female Lehistes direct in same aquarium 36 36 0 100 2 Female Lehistes in a beaker floated in aquarium. 78 48 30 62— 3 Female Lehistes in an immediately adjacent aqua- rium 6 1 5 17— 4 Female Lehistes in an aquarium 15 cm. distant. . 6 0 6 0 5 Anesthetized female direct in same aquarium, lying on bottom 15 8 7 53 -b 6 Anesthetized female direct in same aquarium, suspended by hair 7 1 6 14 + 7 Freshly dead female direct in same aquarium .... 12 0 12 0 8 Freshly dead female in a beaker floated in aqua- rium 6 0 6 0 9 Female in perforated opaque box in aquarium. . . 7 0 7 0 10 Water from aquarium containing many females added to aquarium 6 0 6 0 Results of Exposures of male Lehistes and fish of other species, under various conditions to 12 test males in 72 trials 11 Male Lehistes in a beaker floated in aquarium. . . . 12 9 3 75 12 Cyprinodon variegatus direct in same aquarium. 6 3 3 50 13 Barhus conchonius direct in same aquarium 12 3 9 25 14 Fundulus heteroclitus direct in same aquarium . . 12 4 8 33 + 15 Cyprinodon variegatus in a beaker floated in aquarium 6 1 5 17— 16 Barhus conchonius in a beaker floated in aqua- rium 12 8 4 67— 17 Fundulus heterocliUis in a beaker floated in aqua- rium 12 7 5 58 + Results of exposure of models, shadows and other objects under various conditions to 12 test males in 78 trials 18 Model of female Lehistes suspended immediately outside aquarium 6 0 6 0 19 As in 18, but moving 6 0 6 0 20 As in 18, but suspended in side aquarium 6 0 6 0 21 As in 20, but smeared with mucus from living female 12 0 12 0 22 As in 21, but moving 6 0 6 0 23 Mirror attached to outside of aquarium 12 0 12 0 24 Empty beaker floated in aquarium . 18 2 16 11 + 25 Projected shadow of living flsh on screen at- tached to aquarium 12 2 10 17— 1935] Breder & Coates: Sex Recognition in the Guppy 193 All gave a percentage of positive reactions. The degree of ac- tivity of these three fishes is in the ascending order of Cyprino- don, Fundulus, Barbus. The percentage of response direct in the aquarium was in the reverse order of this: 50%, 33%, 25% (Tests 12, 13, 14, Table I). The active and fast moving Barbus scarcely gave the male a chance to organize its courting display before it was off in another corner with the male in pursuit. The more sedate Cyprinodon usually permitted the male to go through a recognizable positive display before moving off. Fundulus was somewhat between these two. When confined in the beaker an inversion of these relationships was found; i.e., the order of reaction stood Barbus, Fundulus, Cyprinodon, with reactions 66%, 58%, 16%, respectively (Tests 16, 17, 15, Table I) . These fish closely confined in a beaker had scant range of movement but preserved their specific degree of activity. This, then, instead of acting as deterrent as before, attracted greater attention in a manner analogous to that in which a male Lebistes in a beaker attracted more than a female (Tests 2 and 11, Table I) . From this it may be fairly inferred that degree of activity and movement are important in stimulating mating activity. Reactions to other objects: A very carefully made model of a female Lebistes^ was tested in various ways but in no case was a response obtained. It was suspended quietly outside the aouarium (Test 18, Table I) and with movement (Test 19, Table D. It was suspended in the aquarium without motion (Test 20, Table I) and was smeared with mucus of a living female, still (Test 21, Table I) and moving (Test 22, Table I). These latter two experiments again indicate the lack of in- volvement of a chemical sense. Like the distinction of a dead from an anesthetized female, the lack of courting of this model is not exnlainable at this writing. Certainly other fishes will attempt displays before models. For example, Betta splendens Lissmann (1932) and Eupomotis gibbosus Noble (1934). A mirror placed outside of the aquarium produced no re- sponse, but mirrors in an aquarium will do so frequently (not part of Table I) . Lissmann has also noted this for Betta. This is referred to the apparent distance of the mirror image rather 2 We are indebted to Mr. Edward Howell, sculptor of miniatures, for the preparation of this model. 194 Zoologica: N. Y. Zoological Society [XIX; 5 italics. Numbers in italics refer to the test numbers of Table I. Test yielding zero reactions omitted, except to female Lebistes. Insert graph : Time in seconds for test males to display courtship activities in successive trials. Italics indicating fastest, slowest and average time refer to Table II. than any other factor, as suggested by the data on the female reactions shown in Figure 24. For example, the mirror’s actual distance was about 100 mm. but the apparent distance was about twice that. A projector was so arranged as to allow a narrow aquarium to be placed between the lens and the light source. The silhouette image of a fish placed in this tank was projected on a piece of parchment affixed to the side of the test aquarium. For this purpose a Barbus was used, because of its activity. The re- sponse elicited by this image was exactly the same as brought forth by a female at the same distance, 17 % (Test 25, Table I) . See Figure 24. A most peculiar response was obtained in checking the possible extraneous effects of introducing a beaker into the test 1935] Breder & Coates: Sex Recognition in the Guppy 195 aquarium. This was introduced eighteen times empty. On two such trials a positive reaction was obtained (Test 24, Table I). Two males out of the six so tested reacted. This reaction in- cluded thrusting the gonopodium vaguely at the curve of the bottom and side of the beaker, at the place where the females usually come to rest. This is referred to a rapid conditioning, since it only occurred after the males in question had been at- tracted by a beaker containing a female. The details of this behavior are set forth in Table II. These data arranged graphically are given in Figure 25. It will be noted that the closely analyzed data, considering the reactions to females in beakers alone, rose from 0% to 100% in three test periods at similar times on three successive days. Most likely the failure to respond at first had to do with initial fright on the disturbance of introducing the beaker. As this passed off, the attractive powers of the contained female very rapidly overcame it, coupled with a conditioning to a repeated stimulus that was followed by no '‘punishment.” Four days later females were again presented in this fashion and then only two of the six males, or 33+%, reacted.’^ Apparently in that time the conditioning had partly disappeared, or, at least, the fish had forgotten the association of a possible mate with this type of disturbance. Males presented at 4 P.M. of the last day (8/16) caused a response by five of the six males, or 83+%. This is not thought to be a significant difference, since on other tests (see Table I and Figure 24) the males, considering all tests, showed a stronger attraction, as is discussed in another place. Fish Nos. 7-12 inclusive were exposed to a male in a beaker, a male in a beaker outside the aquarium, and twice to females in beakers In the aquarium in successive hours, and to females in a beaker twenty-four hours later. Comparable results were ob- tained, considering the slightly differing conditions. The first exposed (male) and the third and fourth (female) induced a comparable increase in percentage of the test males reacting; i.e,, 66+%, 83+% and 100%. The second (male) is not comparable, for the fish was farther away and the per- centage was proportionately lower, 16+%. Compare with data These data and that following on this subject were not included in tabular matter be- cause of space limitations. 196 Zoologica: N. Y. Zoological Society [XIX; 5 TABLE II Conditioning of males to a female in a beaker floated in an aquarium and to an empty beaker. Fishes No. 1 to 6, inclusive, used once in each test Date and hour of test (P.M.) No. Positive No. Negative % of Tests Positive Beaker 8/14 2 0 6 0 with female 8/14 3 1 5 17— with female 8/14 4 2 4 33+ with female 8/14 5 2 4 33+ with female 8/15 3 1 5 17— empty 8/15 4 0 6 0 empty 8/15 5 5 1 83+ with female 8/16 1 1 5 17— empty 8/16 2 6 0 100 with female 8/16 3 6 0 100 with female in Figure 24. The higher level of the first three as compared with data in Figure 25, would seem to be referable to initially less fear on the part of these fish or earlier unintentional con- ditioning of which no accurate record was kept. Twenty-four hours later a female in a beaker elicited a 66+ % response. This set seemed to unlearn what they had learned the day before, whereas the first set of test fish did not. Such differences are naturally to be expected and, if anything, these figures are rather remarkable for their closeness of agreement. Referring again to Table II and Figure 25, the remarkable response to an empty beaker may be examined. Presenting such a beaker about twenty-four hours after a response to a female, a 16+% reaction was obtained. An hour later it was zero. An hour following this the recognition of a fish in the beaker was demonstrated by 83+%. The next day again, about twenty-four hours later, 16+% was again obtained. An hour later 100% reaction was the response to females in the beaker. From this it may be inferred that the association of a female with a beaker is retained for at least twenty-four hours, but one presentation of the empty beaker is sufficient to break this. It may be built up again on one exposure to a female in the beaker. This dis- cussion could be carried somewhat further, considering the length of time before a positive reaction took place, etc., but it 1935] Breder & Coates: Sex Recognition in the Guppy 197 Fig. 25. Graphic arrangement of conditioning of male Lehistes to females in a beaker floated in their aquaria, and to empty beakers. The data refer to Table II. Each point represents the percentage of positive responses obtained from one test on each of six fishes (Males No. 1 to 6, inclusive). may suffice to point out that the reactions to the empty beaker were rapid as compared with an average of the others. Further experiments would be necessary to demonstrate more thoroughly the extent of this apparent “snap judgment’" and conditioning, but for the present purposes the above will suffice. It demon- strated the need of care in a study of this kind, which was its only purpose. All subsequent work was carried on with these data as a guide, involving the application of time intervals suffi- cient to assure the unlearning of any possible conditioning. This phenomenon leads to an examination of the speed of the reaction times of the males of this species. Six males were exposed to a female direct in their aquaria, six times each. The time in seconds for each reaction is given in Table III. Between each test a period of twenty-four hours elapsed, except between Tests 4 and 5, which was forty-eight hours. It will be noted that the mean reaction time varied from twenty-four seconds (Fish No. 19) to four seconds (Fish No. 21). The average of the reaction times for each successive trial falls in good order from forty seconds to four seconds. Fish No. 20 did not react rapidly on the third trial and then seemed to begin all over. Omitting this one exceptional fish, the curve of descent 198 Zoologica: N. Y. Zoological Society [XIX; 5 would be even more regular. The inset of Figure 24 gives the average reaction time, together with that of the fish with the longest and shortest mean time. It is to be noted that after the initial drop between Tests 1 and 2, there is little further reduc- tion. The introduction of a female from a net seems to be taken for granted almost after one trial. Compared with the “learn- ing curves’’ of Welty (1934) for goldfish, the present would seem to be in accord, considering the large difference between maze learning and sex recognition which make use of the food and mating “drive,” respectively. This is in keeping with the TABLE III Reaction Times of Experiment No. 1, Table I Test Male No. 1 Trial No. 2 Reaction 3 Time in 4 Seconds 5 6 Average 19 120 4 7 3 5 5 24 20 5 7 75 25 11 7 22— 21 8 7 3 2 1 2 4— 22 72 2 1 2 2 3 14— 23 11 4 7 1 2 5 5 24 14 2 4 3 7 2 5 AVERAGE 40 4+ 16+ 6 5— 4 speed of learning that Lehistes show, regarding in which corner of the aquarium they are commonly fed. We consider this an explanation of the attempt to court an empty beaker by some rapidly learning males, especially since there appears to be con- siderable spread in the rapidity with which Lehistes learn, as is evidenced by data given in Tables II and III. Discussion It is clearly evident from the foregoing experiments that vision alone can account for the marked sexual activity of Lehistes. Experiments involving the chemical senses, on the other hand, yield nothing but negative results. The same is true of any conceivable mechanical agitation. Experiment No. 9 should have given some such evidence on this sense, as well as olfaction if it were present. In this connection it is noteworthy 1935] Breder & Coates: Sex Recognitioyi in the Guppy 199 that Lebistes are purely diurnal and attempt no mating or courting at night, as may be noted by suddenly flashing on a light or examination by a dull red light to which they are not responsive. When the light falls below a certain threshold, they quiet down and rest passively, usually in the shelter of some vegetation. The items calling forth the display reactions of the courting male may be evoked by a wide variety of optical stimuli so long as they occur within a limit of about 150 mm., provided the light is not behind the subject. This latter, naturally, is rare in a state of nature and probably does not enter at all. It could occur only with an object overhead and since Lebistes is so pre- dominantly a surface fish of shallow water, such an occasion would certainly be uncommon. The apparent distinction between a dead female, a model and an anesthetized one, is not readily explained. Parts can be explained on a reasonable basis, however. Since the males will attempt courting a projected shadow, it may be that the “characteristic” fish movement with its apparent alternate ex- pansion and contraction in size is the important factor. Then, all the experiments involving a moving model, stiff and awkward, might be ruled out as fear-inspiring, rather than attractive. This in no way, however, helps in understanding why a dead female lying on the tank floor was treated as a food object, while a similarly inert anesthetized one was courted. While this peculiarity requires further study, it certainly suggests the entry of some delicate chemical distinctions. Under water, the otherwise disregarded “effluvia” of a dead fish is very likely different from that of one under an anesthetic, although one would suppose that such a substance itself would act as a repellent. Considering the visual elements involved, we seem to be on much more secure ground. These reactions of the male are clearly conditioned purely by the size, distance and amount of motion of the object involved, as modified by the light conditions affecting the visual acuity of the subject. It is only at exceed- ingly close ranges that certain features of recognition become confused, as above indicated. A study of the optical system of this fish should be of value in this connection. TABLE IV Behavior of individual test males under the trials of Table I, expressed in percentage of positive reactions. 200 Zoologica: N. Y, Zoological Society [XIX; 5 0) -2 ^ M O r-i(MCOTflOOt-OOOOr-l(M % 100 94+ 17— 0 75 14+ 0 0 0 0 75 50 25 33+ 17— 67— 58+ 0 0 0 0 0 0 33+ 17- of Males Reacting B = "Bitten”— regarded as a food object by test male. 1935] Breder & Coates: Sex Recognition in the Guppy 201 Since Lebistes is an aggregating species living in communi- ties of sometimes considerable size, a consideration of this habit is necessary in order to understand certain features of recogni- tion. In the experimental portion of this paper, display and courting behavior were considered a positive evidence of sex recognition. Since the males will “court” a diverse number of objects, the question may be raised as to what is sex recognition in such forms, in the first place. It has been shown that males of other fishes, when in the proper physiological state, have a courting display for females indistinguishable from the fighting or “bluff” display. For example, Lissmann (1932) for Betta, Breder (1934) for Aequidens, and Noble (1934) for Eupomotis. Since Lebistes is continually ready for mating, there is every reason why these fishes should perform as they do on every occa- sion presenting itself. Whether these are to be considered bluff at one time and courtship another, seems to us to be almost point- less. Since these fishes do not fight as do the ones mentioned above, the display simply results in a parting of the two males. If both display, it would seem there is a mutually discouraging effect. If the approached fish is a female, it seems to make little difference, for she will flee also. Successful mating seems only to be accomplished by slipping up to the female, as previously pointed out, which interpretation leaves the display without functional significance. Since it might be argued that the dis- play may have value in telling two approaching males what not to mate with, it is pointed out that males will sometimes pursue other males that in turn are bent on courting females. Since the latter male has its attention occupied, the former will some- times apparently effect transfer. This naturally results in a complete but momentary interruption of the latter’s courting activity. Before these features become evident themselves, however, the simple, non-sexual, aggregating tendencies of Lebistes come into play. The schools of Lebistes are certainly held together by the common means described by Parr (1927 and 1931), Spooner (1931), Bowen (1931) and Breder and Nigrelli (1935) for other fishes. In Lebistes the fishes do not head all the same way, as they are neither stemming a current (normally) nor moving in any more or less rectilinear path. Any such tendency is 202 Zoologica: N. Y. Zoological Society [XIX; 5 broken up both by their individual browsing habits and the ran- dom sexual efforts of the males. Just as it has been shown that Lebistes will attempt to mate with a variety of objects, just so it may be shown that they will attempt to consort with prac- tically any small moving object. In fact, the latter must take place first in order for the former to become operative. The conclusion cannot be avoided that sex recognition, as such, is non-existent in Lebistes. Breder (1934) showed that in Aequidens recognition on a basis of behavior existed between ripe females and all other individuals. Because females of Lebistes are always capable of being ‘‘fertilized,” even this dis- tinction disappears. The sperm of this fish is encapsuled, and may be retained for months in a viable state in the female’s body, and as the eggs are fertilized for at least as many as six suc- cessive broods, it would seem that here a distinct conservation of the male element occurs. This feature is completely nullified by the prodigious energy with which the males dispense their substance. Consequently it would seem that such fish are no more conservative in this regard than fishes that have a less efficient method of uniting sperm and eggs, but in which mating is only possible with physiologically suitable mates. It would seem that some level of effectiveness is reached in fish fertiliza- tion, but no matter by what means there always remains a loosely integrated element that makes for a large wastage of sperm. Perhaps this has some general but obscure physiological implication. With the conditions as described a significance can scarcely be referred to the elaborate but variable pattern of the males. Certainly no female Lebistes gives the slightest evidence of ever being in a position to exercise any “sexual selection.” As it might be thought that the lack of fixed pattern in the males of this species might be conditioned by this very fact, it may be pointed out that among the Poeciliidae there is a wide range of secondary differences between the sexes as well as many cases of nearly complete similarity. Gambusia affinis, for ex- ample, shows very little color or pattern differences between the sexes. Others show marked differences, but the male pat- tern is relatively definite and fixed; for example, Micropoecilia branneri. In some species the males carry elaborate ornamenta- 1935] Breder & Coates: Sex Recognition m the Guppy 203 tion other than color, such as Xiphophorus and Mollienisia. In most, the males are considerably smaller than the females, but in some the corporeal differences are relatively slight, as in Platypoecilus. Since there is no reason to suppose that there is any important difference in the courtship and recognition mechanism of the various Poeciliidae, and a considerable amount of observation by both authors shows that the basic perform- ances are similar, we have no reason to assume that their par- ticular habits of courting tend to encourage (1) polymorphism of the male secondary sex characters; (2) fixity of the male secondary sex characters; (3) large differentiation between male and female, or (4) similarity between male and female. Noble (1934) in discussing the possibility of sexual selec- tion in Eupomotis, suggests that brighter males might be visited more frequently than relatively dull ones, or that the females might visit the more actively cleaned and presumably more conspicuous nests. He writes, ‘'Hence it is probable that a true sexual selection may occur in the sunfish, since the females would presumably move into redds which attract their atten- tion first.” While this is not the place to discuss this view in detail, it may be pointed out that such a condition would appear to be valid only in the case of a large disparity between the number of males and females. Thus, a relatively few females, if mating with the first available males (on the average, most conspicuous), might become exhausted of roe before all nests received a quota of eggs. Observation by one of us in a scat- tered variety of places, over a number of years, leads to no such conclusion, however, since what may be called “bachelor” males have never been noted and the proportion of the sexes is certainly not low on the female side. This matter is mentioned in the present connection to point out that for alleged sexual selection to be operative in fishes, even in forms that require cooperation of the female, there must be a sufficiently small number of females present to allow of the most “unattractive” males going unmated. Consequently in Lebistes and the Poeciliidae in general, even if it were not for the disinterest of the females, sexual selection could hardly be expected to be operative by that sex because of the complexion of the population which is so predominately female. 204 Zoologica: N, Y, Zoological Society [XIX; 5 Pertinent to this discussion is the condition found in a large collection of living Lehistes sent to the New York Aquarium by Mr. Claudio Urrutia from Venezuela. The males of this strain were found to be strikingly lacking in the usually brilliant pat- tern of these fish. Some had the faintest suggestion of a yellow or greenish streak, some a dusky spot, but many were virtually of the same drab body tint as the female. These males were found to be, on a four month’s observation, as sexually active as those of more brilliant strains and included the frequent completion of the sex act. It was noted, however, that offspring even from isolated females were few and irregular, although the activity of the adults was normal. This condition suggests the view that associates male secondary characters with the appropriate hormones and the corresponding physiological re- productive level, without reference to any possible selective value of ornamentation. What is probably the most curious feature of the entire study is by what means the male locates the genital pore. In no case was there any hesitancy or any evidence of the employ- ment of a trial and error method. How this is effected is not clear, and this study gives no clue, but it is to be noted that even in the attempted copulation with a shadow, exactly the appro- priate region was selected. Fertilization of an adequate nature by the exceedingly ac- tive males of this species is insured (1) by their aggregating behavior, which tends to hold them in a group; (2) by their sexual aggressiveness ; (3) by finding females more frequently than males, because of their larger size and consequent greater visibility, and (4) by the countering actions of approached males. Summary 1. Sex recognition in Lehistes reticulatus Peters is feeble, if present at all, and sexually active males will attempt to fertilize a variety of objects. 2. Males isolated for one week reacted positively to: females exposed in the same aquarium; in an adjacent aquarium not more than 15 cm. distant; anesthetized females; males; 1935] Breder & Coates: Sex Recognition in the Guppy 205 specimens of Cyprinodon variegatus, Fundulus heteroclitus and Barbus conchonius ; and the projected shadows of liv- ing fish on the side of the aquarium, but not to carefully made models of females, either moving or still, to a mirror outside the aquarium (apparent distance too great?), or to females behind opaque but perforated screens. 3. Evidently vision alone accounts for the observed behavior. 4. It is inferred that discriminative sex recognition does not exist as such, but any object of appropriate size will stimu- late the mating instinct if showing the characteristic mo- tions of a living fish. < 5. Female Rebistes have not been noted to display any interest in sex activity, as is common in forms that require coopera- tion of the sexes to insure reproduction. 6. In no case was there any error noted in locating the genital region by a courting male, the gonopodium always being thrust toward the region of the genital pore, including that of the projected shadow. The problem, in this species at least, then shifts from mate recognition to recognition of the genital region. The mechanism of the latter is not evi- dent from these studies. 7. The sexes are primarily brought together by their non- sexual aggregating habits. 8. Adequate fertilization is insured by the great activity of the males and their general disposition to attempt mating with many objects showing slight motion. This is enhanced by both the preponderance of females and their ability to give birth up to six broods on one fertilization. 9. Detection of mating objects is entirely visual; chemical (taste and smell) and tactile (auditory and mechanical) senses do not enter at all. 10. No significance can be attached to the elaborate but variable colors of the males by this study. 206 Zoologica: N. Y. Zoological Society [XIX; 5 Bibliography Bowen, E. S. 1931 The role of the sense organs in aggregations of Ameiurus melas. Ecological Monographs, 1 (1) : 1-35. Breder, C. M., Jr. 1934 An experimental study of the reproductive habits and life history of the cichlid fish, Aequidens latifrons (Steindachner) . Zoologica, 18 (1) : 1-42. Breder, C. M. Jr. and Coates, C. W. 1932 A preliminary study of population stability and sex ratio of Lebistes. Copeia, (3) : 147-155. 1934 Sex recognition in the viviparous poeciliid Lebistes reticulatus [Abstract] Anat. Record 60 (4) : 45. Breder, C. M., Jr. and Nigrelli, R. F. 1935 The influence of temperature and other factors on the winter aggregations of the sunfish, Lepomis auritus. Ecology, 16 (1) : 33-37. Lissmann, H. W. 1932 Die Umwelt des Kampffisches (Betta splendens Regan) Zeitschr. Vergleichende Physiologic 18 (1) : 65-111. Noble, G. K. 1934 Sex recognition in the sunfish Eupomotis gibbosus (Linne). Copeia (4) : 151-155. Dec. 31. Parr, A. E. 1927 A contribution to the theoretical analysis of the schooling be- havior of fishes. Occ. Pap. Bingham Oceanographic Coll. (1) : 1-32. 1931 Sex dimorphism and schooling behavior among fishes. Amer. Naturalist, 68: 173-180. Reeves, C. D. 1907 The breeding habits of the rainbow darter {Etheostoma coeruleum Storer) : A study in sexual selection. Biological Bull., 14: 35-59. Reighard, J. E. 1903 An experimental study of the spawning behavior of Lampetra wilderi. Science n.s., 17 : 529. 1910 Methods of studying the habits of fishes, with an account of the breeding habits of the horned dace. Bull. Bur. Fisheries (1908) 28 (pt. 2) : 1111-1136. 1913 The breeding habits of the log perch (Percina caprodes) IMh Rept. Mich. Acad. Sci., 104-105. 1920 The breeding behavior of suckers and minnows. I. Suckers. Bio- logical Bull., 38, 1-32. Smith, B. G. 1908 The spawning habits of Chrosomus erythrogaster Rafinesque. Biological Bull., 15: 9-18. 1935] Breder & Coates: Sex Recognition in the Guppy 207 Spooner, G. M. 1931 Some observations on schooling in fish. Journ. Marine Biol. Ass. United Kingdom, 17 : 421-448. Welty, J. C. 1934 Experiments in group behavior of fishes. Physiological Zoology, 7 (1) ; 85-128. WUNDER, W. 1927 Experimentelle Untersuchungen an Stichlingen (Kampfe, Nest- bau, Laichen Brutpflege). Zool. Anz. Suppl. 3: 115-127 (1928). 1930 Experimentelle Untersuchungen am dreistachligen Stichling (Gasterosteus aculeatus L.) wahrend der Laichtaeit. (Kampfe, Nestbau, Laichen Brutpflege) Zeitschr. Wiss. Biol. Abt. A. Zeit- schr Morphol. u. O Kel. Tiere 16 (3/4) : 453-498. Young, R. T. and Cole, L. J. 1900 On the nesting habits of the brook lamprey {Lampetra wilderi). Amer. Naturalist, 34: 617-620. jBteha ^orfe Hoolosical ^ocietp Scientific Publications A completely classified list of the subjects included in each of the finished volumes of ZOOLOGICA, and all other publications of the New York Zoological Society will be furnished on application. Address H. R. MITCHELL Manager, Zoological Park 185th St. and Southern Boulevard, New York City ZOOLOGICA SCIENTIFIC CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE NEW YORK ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY VOLUME XIX. NUMBER 6 THE FISHES OF UNION ISLAND, GRENADINES, BRITISH WEST INDIES, WITH THE DESCRIPTION OF A NEW SPECIES OF STAR-GAZER William Beebe Director^ Department of Tropical Research and Gloria Hollister Research Associate PUBLISHED BY THE SOCIETY THE ZOOLOGICAL PARK, NEW YORK December 31, 1935 ileto gorfe Zoolostcal ^otietp General Office : 101 Park Avenue, New York City (0{fi'cersi President, Madison Grant Vice-Presidents, W. Redmond Cross and Kermit Roosevelt Chairman, Executive Committee, Madison Grant Treasurer, Cornelius R. Agnew Secretary, Henry Fairfield Osborn, Jr. ^oarb of ^rugtceg Clasfss of 1936 Madison Grant, Lewis R. Morris, Archer M. Huntington, Cornelius R. Agnew, Harrison Williams, Marshall Field, Ogden L. Mills, Vincent Astor, C. Suydam Cutting, Childs Frick, Alfred Ely, Herbert L. Pratt of 1937 George Bird Grinnell, Frederic C. Walcott, George C. Clark, W. Redmond Cross, Henry Fairfield Osborn, Jr., George Gordon Battle, Bayard Dominick, Robert Gordon McKay, Kermit Roosevelt, John M. Schiff, Robert L. Gerry, Warren Kinney Class of 1938 Robert S. Brewster, Edward S. Harkness, Irving K. Taylor, Harry Payne Bingham, Landon K. Thorne, J. Watson Webb, Oliver D. Filley, De Forest Grant, George F. Baker Scientific Staff W. Reid Blair, Director of the Zoological Park William T. Hornaday, Director Emeritus Charles H. Townsend, Director of the Aquarium C. M. Breder, Jr., Assistant Director, Aquarium Raymond L. Ditmars, Curator of Mammals and Reptiles William Beebe, Honorary Curator of Birds and Director of Department of Tropical Research Lee S. Crandall, Curator of Birds H. C. Raven, Prosector Charles V. Noback, Veterinarian Claude W. Leister, Ass*t to the Director and Curator, Educational Activities Edward R. Osterndorff, Photographer William Bridges, Editor and Curator of Publications Cbitorial Committee Madison Grant, Chairman W. Reid Blair William Beebe William Bridges Charles H. Townsend George Bird Grinnell Zoologica, Vol. XIX, No. 6 THE FISHES OF UNION ISLAND, GRENADINES, BRITISH WEST INDIES, WITH THE DESCRIPTION OF A NEW SPECIES OF STAR-GAZER/ William Beebe, Sc.D. Director, Department of Tropical Research and Gloria Hollister, M.A. Research Associate, Department of Tropical Research (Figs. 26 and 27) INTRODUCTION Union Island is one of the Grenadines, and one of the few with a satis- factory anchorage. Until now, no faunal fish list of this locality has been published. On the yacht Antares, under the aegis of Colonel and Mrs. Edwin M. Chance, we spent parts of six days, July 6 to 11, 1932, anchored in Chatham Bay, off the west shore. In 48 daylight working hours Miss Hollister and myself caught or observed 110 species of fish. We used water- glass and diving helmet, traps, seines, hooks and trolling spoons. The fifteen inches of tide at this place resulted in a complete absence of tidepools. Two years later, on a second visit of the Antares to the island, eight additional species were obtained by the Chances, including a new species of star-gazer. This brings the total number to 118 species. Flyingfish have not been included in this list. Union Island is well wooded, with a jagged central ridge, one peak of which reaches 1,000 feet elevation. Chatham Bay on the south side, where all the collecting was done, is an open semicircle, the land rising steeply in all directions. The narrow beach is part sandy, part rocky. At the northern entrance is a small islet, which from its complete drapery of Cereus we called Medusa Island. Just beyond we found a small bay with a circular coral reef in two to four fathoms. Here we did all of our diving. Union Island, which is about two miles in diameter, is centered at 12° 36' N. Lat. and 61° 26' W. Long., and it is about twenty miles north of Grenada. LIST OF FISHES OF UNION ISLAND, GRENADINES DASYATIDAE Dasyatis americana Hildebrand & Schroeder One caught in big seine pulled in Chatham Bay, July 8, 1932. Length disk 290, tail 385, total 675 mm.; width disk 330 mm. Color olive green above. MOBULIDAE Manta birostris (Walbaum) Twelve small devilfish were seen resting on the sandy bottom off Frigate Islet, on July 11, 1932. They moved slowly away as the shadow of our launch struck them. They were four to six feet across. 1 Contribution No. 480, Department of Tropical Research, New York Zoological Society. 209 210 Zoologica: N. Y. Zoological Society [XIX; 6 Fig. 26. Panorama of Chatham Bay, Union Island, with the Antares at anchor. {Photograph by Gloria Hollister) 1935] Beebe & Hollister: Fishes of Union Grenadines 211 MEGALOPIDAE Tarpon atlanticus (Cuvier & Valenciennes) Four seen in twenty-five feet of water near shore off Medusa Islet, July 6, 1932, and on several other days. Only visible when we were down in the diving helmet. They were quite fearless, passing within ten feet, and all about the same size, six feet in length. In spite of every effort on the part of our expert tarpon fishermen, none could be persuaded to rise to any bait or lure. ALBULIDAE Albula vulpes (Linnaeus) Two leptocephalus larvae caught with dip-net near night light, July 6 and 7, 1932. Lengths 57 and 60 mm. Two adults taken in seine, July 8, 1932. Lengths 177 and 180 mm. CLUPEIDAE Harengula macrophthalmus (Ranzani) Hundreds caught in several seinings, July 6 and 8, 1932. Lengths 80 to 100 mm. Several taken with dip-net from Antares at night light. Length 26 mm. Scutes 17+13. One specimen, July, 1934. Length 48 mm. Sardinella aurita Cuvier & Valenciennes Three caught in seine, July 8, 1932. Length 115 mm. DUSSUMIERIIDAE Jenkinsia lamprotaenia (Gosse) Twenty-one caught with dip-net at night light, July 6 and 7, 1932. Lengths 20 to 26 mm. ENGRAULIDAE Anchoviella platyargyrea (Fowler) One caught in seine, July 8, 1932. Length 54 mm. Cetengraulis edentulus (Cuvier) One specimen, July, 1934. Length 90 mm. MURAENIDAE Gymnothorax moringa (Cuvier) One caught in wire trap at night, two fathoms down in Tarpon Bay, July 6, 1932. Length 720 mm. One unidentifiable larval eel, food of Parathunnus atlanticus (Lesson). Length 50 mm. SYNODONTIDAE Synodus intermedius (Agassiz) One caught trolling with a feather hook, July 8, 1932. Length 250 mm. Trachinocephalus myops (Forster) Three leptocephalus larval fish caught with dip-net near night light, July 6, 1932. Lengths 37 to 47 mm. One adult caught in seine, July 8, 1932. Length 168 mm. In full breed- 212 Zoologica: N. Y. Zoological Society [XIX; 6 ing condition, ovaries very large. The color is decidedly a striped, not a blotched, pattern. When viewed from above there are faint indications of nine or ten broad bands extending part way down the sides. The stripes consist of a band of turquoise blue, while above this are several alternating bands of pale straw and blue. Beneath, the bands become fainter until they disappear in the white of the belly. A conspicuous dark blotch lies partly beneath the upper area of the opercle. Eye silvery yellow. The food was a Xyrichthys infirmus, length 106 mm. Two post-larval fish, length 40 mm., from the stomach of Parathvymus atlanticus (Lesson). HEMIRHAMPHIDAE Euleptoramphus velox Poey Two or three seen skipping over the surface of the water, July 11, 1932. BOTHIDAE Platophrys lunatus (Linnaeus) One caught in seine July 8, 1932. Length 60 mm. Platophrys spinosus (Poey) One caught in seine July 8, 1932. Length 84 mm.; depth 46 (1.8); head 22 (3.8) ; eye 7.7 (3.8) ; dorsal 84; anal 61; lateral line pores 33. This species has been synonymized by Metzelaar with Platophrys ocel- latus, but the characters of our specimen compel us to keep it separate. Platophrys ocellatus (Agassiz) Six caught in seine, July 6 and 8, 1932. Lengths 16, 25, 37, 40, 158 and 165 mm. Citharichthys microstomus Gill One caught in seine, July 6, 1932. Length 38.5 mm.; depth 19.3 (2); head 9.5 (4) ; eye 2.7 (3.5) ; interorbital .8 (11.8) ; maxillary 2.3 (4) ; dor- sal 71; anal 54; scales 34 pores; gill-rakers 7; pectoral short 6.6; lateral line almost straight;, 9 rows of scales between lateral line and anal. Although the vertical rows of scales are less than in typical microsto- mus, the fish seems to be too close otherwise to this form to be designated as a new species, especially on the basis of a single small individual. HOLOCENTRIDAE Holocentrus ascensionis (Osbeck) Many seen with water-glass and when diving. Myripristis jacobus Cuvier & Valenciennes Several seen while diving. SYNGNATHIDAE Syngnathus elucens Poey Four taken with dip-net near night light, July 6, 1932. Length 50 mm. Thirty-three young taken with dip-net at night light, July 10, 1932. Lengths 38 to 45 mm. AULOSTOMIDAE Aulostomus maculatus Valenciennes Two young specimens caught in wire trap at night in two fathoms of water, July 9, 1932. Lengths 105 and 115 mm. 1935] Beebe & Hollister: Fishes of Union I., Grejiadines 213 FISTULARIIDAE Fislularia tabacaria Linnaeus One caught in seine, July 9, 1932. Length 240 mm. plus a 75 mm. tail filament. ATHERINIDAE Atherina stipes (Muller & Troschel) Twenty-one caught in seines, July 8, 1932. Lengths 40 to 60 mm. MUGILIDAE Querimana curema (Cuvier & Valenciennes) Twenty-three caught in seines, July 6 and 8, 1932. Lengths 19 to 35 mm. Ten adults taken in seine, July 9, 1932. One saved, length 207 mm. Twenty-eight caught with dip-net near night light, July 7, 1932. Length 30 mm. SPHYRAENIDAE Sphyraena barracuda (Walbaum) One caught trolling north of Medusa Island, July 9, 1932, at 11 A. M. Length 600 mm. POLYNEMIDAE Polynemus virginicus Linnaeus Fifty-five caught in two seines in Chatham Bay, July 6 and 8, 1932. Lengths 40 to 60 mm. CYBIIDAE Scomberomorus regalis (Bloch) “Cero” Thirteen caught trolling, July 6, 7, 8 and 11, 1932. Lengths 550 to 660 mm. Measurements of specimen 550 mm.: depth 108 mm. (5.1); head 128 mm. (4.4) eye 21 mm. (6); snout 54 mm. (2.3); dorsal XVII, 13-VIII; anal II, 16-VIII; gill-rakers 10. Scomberomorus cavalla (Cuvier) “Kingfish” Two caught on trolling line, July 8 and 11, 1932. Antares No. 50a: length 760 mm.; depth 140 mm.; head 171 mm.; eye 27 mm.; snout 70 mm.; dorsal XIV, 13-X; anal II, 16-IX; length of pectoral 102 mm.; gill- rakers 8; weight 12 pounds. KATSUWONIDAE Euthynnus alletteratus (Rafinesque) One caught on trolling line, July 11, 1932. Length 700 mm.; depth 156 mm. (4.5) ; head 167 mm. (4.2) ; eye 24 mm. (7) ; snout 48 mm. (3.5) ; max- illary 62 mm. (2.7) ; dorsal XVI-12-VIII; anal 12-VII; gill-rakers 28; weight 7 pounds. Five spots below pectorals, not as large as pupil. Large trema- tode in extreme end of stomach. THUNNIDAE Parathunnus .atlanticus (Lesson) One caught on trolling line, July 11, 1932. Female, breeding; length 570 mm.; depth 155 mm. (3.6); head 173 mm. (3.3); eye 32 mm. (5.4); snout 56 mm. (3) ; maxillary 70 mm. (2.4) ; dorsal XIV, 13-VIII; anal 10- VIII; gill-rakers 18; length of pectoral 155 mm. (in head 1.1, in length 3.7) ; weight 4 pounds. Dark bronze above, bright yellow along sides, shading below into silvery from head to tail. Pectoral bright yellow, with broad jet black tip. Many hundreds of caecae. Ovary 130 mm. by 30 mm. Food 214 Zoologica: N. Y. Zoological Society [XIX; 6 in stomach: two post-larval Trachinocephalus my ops 40 mm. (in the stomach of one of these in turn was a young eel, 50 mm. long) ; one larval eel 50 mm.; several shrimps and one large carapace of a shrimp. CARANGIDAE Caranx (Xurel) latus Agassiz Thirty-two specimens caught in four seines in Chatham Bay, July 6 and 8, 1932. Lengths 40 mm. to 250 mm. Individual lengths are as follows: 2 fish of 40 mm. 18 “ “ 50 “ 3 “ “ 70 “ 1 “ “ 80 “ 1 “ “ 135 “ 1 “ “ 140 “ 6 “ 250 “ A large, white, parasitic Isopod, Cymothoa oestrum (Linnaeus) in the mouth of the 135 mm. specimen. Four specimens caught with hook and line off Antares, July 6, 1932. Length 450 mm. Five specimens caught on trolling line, July 7 and 8, 1932. Average length 570 mm. One specimen caught with dip-net near night light, July 7, 1932. Color note for Antares No. 40, length 140 mm.: 1st dorsal dusky and tip of 2nd dorsal black; caudal lemon yellow with dusky tips; anal yellow for basal two-thirds. One specimen, July, 1934. Length 38 'mm. Caranx (Paratractus) crysos (Mitchill) One caught in a seine, July 8, 1932. Length 135 mm. One caught trolling, July 7, 1932. Length 480 mm. ; depth 145 mm. (3.3) ; head 133 mm. (3.6) ; eye 22 mm. (6) ; snout 45 mm.; dorsal VII-I, 23; anal II-I, 19; pectoral length 134; gill-rakers 26. Pectoral reaches al- most to anal fin. Caranx (Elaphotoxon) ruber (Bloch) One caught in a seine, July 8, 1932. Length 90 mm. Caranx (Elaphotoxon) bartholomaei (Cuvier & Valenciennes) Two caught in a seine, July 8, 1932. Lengths 102 and 130 mm. Decapterus punctatus (Agassiz) One caught in a seine, July 8, 1932. Length 135 mm. Color typical for this species except for a distinct greenish line down the side. Trachinotus palometa Regan One caught in seine, July 6, 1932. Length 140 -mm. Showed great viability under adverse conditions. Side view wholly silvery with three long vertical dark bands and two very short bands. Falcate portions of vertical fins black, basal part of falcate fins a rich coppery brown. Outer caudal rays black. Iris silvery. Trachurops crumenophthalma (Bloch) The most abundant fish in seines. Eight hundred taken in one haul of the seine along shore, July 8, 1932. Lengths 95 to 140 mm. Color steel blue above, a faint golden line down side, remainder silver. Vomer setapinnis cubensis Nichols One specimen, July, 1934. Length 75 mm. 1935] Beebe & Hollister: Fishes of Union /., Grenadmes 215 APOGONIDAE Apogoii maculatus (Poey) Several seen with water-glass and when diving. Apogon sellicauda Evermann & Marsh One specimen, July, 1934. Length 18 mm. EPINEPHELIDAE Trisotropis bonaci (Poey) Seen many times with the water-glass and when diving. Rypticus saponaceus (Bloch & Schneider) Two seen while diving near Medusa Island. Cephalopholis fulvus (Linnaeus) Two caught with hook and line off Antares, July 6, 1932. Length 180 mm. Color: pale henna body, with small turquoise spots scattered evenly over head, body and dorsal fin; iris scarlet; two small, jet black spots on upper side of caudal peduncle; pectoral with broad margin of orange; ter- minal half of ventrals and anal dark. SERRANIDAE Hypoplectrus unicolor (Walbaum) Several seen while diving near Medusa Island. PEMPHERIDAE Pempheris schomburgki Muller & Troschel One taken in tidepool near Medusa Island, July 9, 1932. Length 14.2 mm.; depth 6.3 mm.; head 6.1 mm.; eye 2.4 mm.; snout 1.5 mm.; dorsal 13; anal III, 23. LUTIANIDAE Lulianus synagris (Linnaeus) Twenty-three caught in three seines, July 6, 1932. Lengths 22 to 105 mm. One caught in a trap in Chatham Bay, July 11, 1932. Length 270 mm. Dorsal X, 12; anal III, 8; gill-rakers 9. All fins and iris scarlet; golden lines on side parallel with body; in general it is decidedly a pink fish. Lutianus mahogoni (Cuvier & Valenciennes) One dredged near shore in Chatham Bay, July 11, 1932. Length 26.2 mm. Several adults seen while diving near Medusa Island. Rhomboplites aurorubens (Cuvier & Valenciennes) Five caught in a trap in Chatham Bay, in 15 fathoms, July 11, 1932. Length 175 mm.; dorsal XII, 12; anal III, 8; gill-rakers 18. Upper part of head and body deep pink, fading into pinkish white on sides and below; iris scarlet; dorsal fin translucent pinkish with very narrow orange red border; fins tinged with pink; caudal fin deep pink at base deepening into scarlet toward tip; about eight irregular goldi lines along body below lat- eral line, slanting upward and backward. Scales 53. Ocyurus chrysurus (Bloch) ' Three caught in seine, July 8, 1932. Seventy-three caught in wire trap, July 6, 1932. Lengths 55 to 90 mm. 216 Zoologica: N. Y. Zoological Society [XIX; 6 HAEMULIDAE Haemulon sciurus ( Shaw ) Several seen while diving and with the water-glass. Haemulon plumieri (Lacepede) Several seen while diving and with the water-glass. SPARIDAE Calamus calamus (Cuvier & Valenciennes) One caught on hook and line off the Antares, July 6, 1932. Length 310 mm. Calamus bajonado (Bloch & Schneider) Three caught in seine, July 8, 1932. Length 74 mm. Violet bar extends forward on the snout. GERRIDAE Eucinostomus gula (Cuvier & Valenciennes) Two caught in a seine, July 8, 1932. Lengths 115 and 140 mm. Eucinostomus californiensis (Gill) Three caught in three seines, July 6, 1932. Length 90 mm. Tip of high dorsal spine black. Ulaema lefroyi (Goode) One caught in seine, July 8, 1932. Length 115 mm. MULLIDAE Upeneus maculatus (Bloch) Three caught in wire trap, July 6, 1932. Length 80 mm. Four caught in three seines, July 6 and 8, 1932. Lengths 100 and 130 mm. SCIAENIDAE Eques pulcher Steindachner One specimen, July, 1934. Length 35 mm. The filaments of the dorsal reached the caudal peduncle. CHAETODONTIDAE Holocanthus tricolor (Bloch) One specimen caught in trap in Chatham Bay, July 11, 1932. Length 165 mm. Anterior third of body a bright yellow, excepting the jaws which are black, and the spines of the preopercle and the skin margin of the branchio- stegals showing under the opercle, which are a bright orange. The first five dorsal spines are bright yellow. The posterior two-thirds of the body is black. This area begins at the 5th dorsal spine and extends downward with a slight slant toward the head, to just above the spine of the opercle. Here the margin of the black slants posteriorly and parallels the base of the pectoral, and then continues in an uneven line, extending downward to the 3rd anal spine. The pectorals and ventrals are bright yellow. The dorsal is solid yellow through the first three spines. The upper third of the fourth web is bright orange. This orange band extends along the whole dorsal fin, becoming narrower posteriorly. The lower third of the web of the 5th spine is black, which color broadens on the sixth web and covers it. The produced tip of the dorsal is bright yellow and the posterior edge of the fin has a narrow yellow band. The 1st and 2nd spines of the anal are 1935] Beebe & Hollister: Fishes of Union L, Grenadines 217 bright orange. The 3rd spine is orange with a dusky tinge. The margin of the ventral fin has a narrow orange band shading into yellow on the pro- duced filament. The posterior margin of the anal fin is bright yellow. The caudal is bright yellow from the vertical of the narrow yellow edge of the dorsal and anal fins. The entire caudal is dotted with many small bright orange dots and the outer edges are banded with orange. The iris has two rich, bright blue bars, one dorsal and one ventral, and two yellow bars, one anterior and one posterior. Chaetodon striatus Linnaeus Several seen while diving and with the water-glass. Chaetodon bimaculatus Bloch Several seen while diving and with the water-glass. Twice at Medusa Reef saw a Chaetodon without bars or ocelli, but this was only a glimpse. Angelichthys ciliaris (Linnaeus) Several seen while diving and with the water-glass. Pomacanthus paru (Bloch) Several seen while diving and with the water-glass. Pomacanthus arcuatus (Linnaeus) Two seen while diving. ACANTHURIDAE Acanthurus hahianus Castelnau Two specimens from a trap, July 11, 1932. Length 95 mm. Acanthurus hepatus (Linnaeus) One specimen from a trap, July 11, 1932. Length 190 mm. One specimen, July, 1934. Length 30 mm. Acanthurus caeruleus Bloch & Schneider Several seen while diving and with the water-glass. Acanthurus heliodes Barbour Several seen while diving and with the water-glass. Possibly a yellow phase of Acanthurus caeruleus. SCORPAENIDAE Scorpaena albofasciata Metzelaar One specimen from tidepool near Medusa Island, July 9, 1932. Length 13.5 mm.; depth 5,7 mm. (2.3); head 6.4 mm. (2.11; eye 2 mm. (3.2); snout .75 mm. (8.5) ; dorsal XI, 10; anal III, 5; scales 22 (pores) ; pectoral length 5 mm. Color of the entire body black; broad tips of pectorals and dorsal rays, and caudal white; caudal with bars and subterminal band black; entire caudal peduncle creamy white, including the parts of the dorsal and anal entering the vertical of this area. POMACENTRIDAE Ahudefduf marginatus (Bloch) Three caught in tidepools, and two from a very shallow pool made by a raised reef on beach of Chatham Bay. Large sized ones seen while diving and with the water-glass, July 6 and 9, 1932. Lengths 10 and 20 mm. All of this species had much less green, and were more of a mono- Zoologica: N. Y. Zoological Society 218 iXIX;6 chrome creamy brown in general than those from Antigua and northward to Bermuda. Abudefduf analogue (Gill) Four young caught in tidepools, July 9, 1932. Lengths 13, 14, 15 and 16 mm. Length 15 mm.; depth 6 mm.; dorsal XII, 14; anal II, 10. The general shape is the same as in marginatus. The color of the background is pale grayish green turning into a light yellow on upper two-thirds, where there are five broad, dark brown, vertical bands; the top of the head is dark and there is a dark spot on the top of the caudal peduncle; the spiny dorsal is dusky brown; the soft dorsal is white, except the base, which is dusky; caudal and pectorals are white; the pectorals are tinged with dusky, with the outer rays prolonged; the iris is pale iridescent-yellowish green. One specimen, July, 1934. Length 26 mm. Stegastes niveatus (Poey) Several seen while diving and with the water-glass. Stegastes chrysurus Bean Several seen while diving and with the water-glass. Demoisellea cyanea Poey Several seen while diving and with the water-glass. Demoisellea marginatus (Castelnau) Several seen while diving and with the water-glass. Eupomacentrus leucostictus (Muller & Troschel) Several seen while diving and with the water-glass. Eupomacentrus fuscus (Cuvier & Valenciennes) Several seen while diving and with the water-glass. Eupomacentrus sp.? One specimen at night light of Antares, July, 1932. Length 10.6 mm.; depth 5.5 mm. (1.93); head 4.9 mm. (2.16); eye 1.61 mm. (3);. snout 1.13 mm. (4.75) ; dorsal XII, 16; anal II, 14)^; scales 27; gill-rakers 11; pores in lateral line 17 ; scales ctenoid, preopercle finely serrate. Scales of anterior upper sides and also upper part of brain-case with dark pigment. Dorsal spines with an occasional pigment spot; small pigment spots on outer portion of pectoral fin; remaining fins colorless; body otherwise colorless except for the pink of the abdomen which shows through the skin. Eupomacentrus rubridorsalis Beebe & Hollister The type of this species is a specimen taken in Chatham Bay, near shore, on July 9, 1932. Length 15.5 mm. Described in Zoologica, Vol. XII, No. 9. Its measurements and coloration are identical with those of a second specimen from Antigua. The body is bluish gray after death, darker blue before; upper head and back above lateral line scarlet, thickly flecked with black; dorsal spines solid scarlet; dorsal rays and anal dusky at base, becoming translucent bluish ; very large ocellus, larger than eye, at junction of dorsal spines and rays, consisting of a large, jet black center, surrounded by a ring of turquoise with a narrow outer frame of black. Turquoise spots, framed in black, as follows (number and arrangement identical with those on the second specimen fom Antigua) : 2 between upper lip and upper eye ; 5 surrounding eye ; 3 on opercle ; 8 in a line from eye almost to ocellus ; 3 large spots on each side of top of head, 1 obliquely above and in front of eye, 1 above eye, and 1 on nape; 5 in iris, upper 2 larger and stronger and connecting the loral and dorsal lines; 2 at base of posterior dorsal rays; 2 at base of posterior anal rays. 1935] Beebe & Hollister: Fishes of Unioyi L, Grefiadines 219 There is a second ocellus, one-third as large as the dorsal one, on the upper peduncle. The iris, aside from the turquoise spots, is golden. LABRIDAE Bodianus rufus (Linnaeus) Several seen while diving. CORIDAE Iridio garnoti (Cuvier & Valenciennes) Several seen through the water-glass and while diving. Iridio bivittata (Bloch) One specimen caught in tidepool, July 9, 1932. Length 73 mm. Many others seen while diving and with the water-glass. . Thalassoma bifasciatum (Bloch) Two specimens from tidepool; many seen while diving, July 9, 1932. Length 25 mm. Dorsal VIII, 111^; anal 13 elements. Upper dorsal sur- face, and two-thirds of dorsal fin, black. A very broad black line covers the lores, and extends back through the eye and along the entire body. Upper fifth of dorsal spines and upper half of dorsal rays colorless and transparent. Basal half of anal pinkish, distal half colorless and trans- parent. Space between dorsal and lateral line black; upper lores and over eye, back to and including upper half of peduncle, bright lemon yellow, this color also extending around base of caudal fin. Lips and back to eye, lemon yellow; anterior under parts dead white; posterior flecked with pink. A faint spot between 5th and 6th dorsal spines. Black band crossing opercles shows distinct pinkish tinge. Iris golden yellow with narrow central ring of red. Xyrichthys psittacus (Linnaeus) Two specimens caught in seine, July 9, 1932. Length 113 mm. All fins pink; verticals with irregular alternate blue and yellow stripes. Body olive green on upper back, pale greenish white on sides and belly. Head with irregular oblique lines of turquoise and gold; on the mid-body a broad oblique band of crimson extending from the back three-quarters of the way down. One fish has an irregular elongated patch of iridescent pale tur- quoise along side of body from half way along the ventrals to beginning of anal. Xyrichthys splendens Castelnau Fifteen specimens taken in a seine, July 9, 1932. Length 108 mm. These wrasse have almost no pink on any of the fins. Xyrichthys infirmus Bean One specimen from a seine, and one from the stomach of Trachino- cephalus my ops, July 8, 1932. Lengths 95 and 106 mm. Specimen No. 61 : Length 95 mm. ; depth 28 mm. ; head 26 mm. ; eye 5 mm.; snout 11 mm.; dorsal IX, 12; anal III, 12; teeth, two big canines above and below. Color of the body olive green, with deep blue vertical line down each scale below lateral line. Entire side of head lavender blue with eight broad, dark, golden lines extending obliquely forward, that below center of eye branched. Eye glittering gold with broad, circular band of lavender. Pectorals pale greenish with red tip. Ventrals, with outer ray greatly elongated, extending to the 6th anal spine, pale pink. Spinous dorsal pale green with broad coral pink tip. Soft dorsal bright pink. Anal trans- lucent bluish, pale, tipped with pink. Caudal dark green at base changing gradually into yellow green with a broad terminal band of coral pink. 220 Zoologica: N. Y. Zoological Society [XIX; 6 Xyrichthys venustus (Poey) One specimen, July, 1934, Length 53 mm. SCARIDAE Scarus gnathodus (Poey) Several seen while diving and with the water-glass. Scarus taeniopterus Desmarest Several seen while diving and with the water-glass. Scarus croicensis Bloch One specimen, July, 1934. Length 23 mm. Pseudoscarus guacamaia (Cuvier) Several seen while diving and with the water-glass. Sparisoma abildgaardi (Bloch) Several seen while diving and with the water-glass. Sparisoma chrysopterum (Bloch & Schneider) Several seen while diving and with the water-glass. Sparisoma flavescens (Bloch & Schneider) One specimen caught in a seine, July 6, 1932. Length 32 mm. Sparisoma radians (Cuvier & Valenciennes) One specimen, July, 1934. Length 34 mm. GOBIIDAE Bathygobius soporator (Cuvier & Valenciennes) Fifteen caught in tidepools, July 9, 1932. Lengths: 1 ;dsh of 6.8 mm. 1 “ “ 15.7 mm. 12 “ “ 25 to 55 mm. 1 ‘‘ “ 58 mm. In specimens of 6.8 and 15.7 mm. in length, the following observation was made: In the smallest fish the pectorals are homogeneous, there being no hint of the separated upper rays. In the larger there are three rays quite well separated, but all flattened, surrounded with membrane and branching into a Y-shape at the tip. Apparently the young are not de- pendent on these for respiratory aid as in the adults. One specimen, July, 1934. Length 22 mm. DACTYLOSCOPIDAE Dactyloscopus tridigitatus Gill Two specimens caught in seine, July 9, 1932. Lengths 50 and 56 mm. Gillellus, new species (For description see page 222.) CLINIDAE Labrisomus nuchipinnis (Quoy & Gaimard) Two caught in tidepool, July 9, 1932. Lengths 19.5 and 120 mm. 1935J Beebe & Hollister: Fishes of Union Grenadines 221 BLENNIIDAE Salarichthys textilis Quoy & Gaimard Twenty-one caught in tidepool, July 9, 1932. Lengths 25 to 55 mm. Riipiscartes atlanticus (Cuvier & Valenciennes) Two specimens caught in tidepools, July 9 and 11, 1932. Lengths 40 and 42 mm. Color of eye iridescent, lemon yellow. Cirri on head and lower lip coral pink; brown and black spot immediately behind the eye. Body vinaceous brown faintly mottled, with about nine indistinct upright bands of cream. Pectorals are a dusky cream with tips of lower six rays a coral pink. Dorsal spines with a broad terminal band of pink, basal two-thirds a bright greenish yellow, with spines and rays showing as dark purplish streaks. Most of the terminal half of dorsal rays greenish yellow, upper rays and caudal touched with pink. Specimen No. 104. Color taken after 24 hours: Upper part of first six dorsal spines bright salmon pink, as is also the lower half of pectorals. Ventrals, dorsal and anal dusky. Caudal grayish like body, with first few upper rays yellow. Ocular and nasal cirri salmon pink. Ocelli back of eyes dark blue with a posterior border of salmon. Body mottled gray with seven narrow vertical lines of light at regular intervals, from pectorals to anterior of caudal peduncle. After two years in preservative the larger specimen has lost the ver- tical lines and those of the smaller are very indistinct. These two fish now resemble the more uniform color described by other authors. Ophioblennius ferox Beebe & Tee- Van Two specimens taken at night light, July 7, 1932. Antares No. 53: Length 44 mm.; depth 9.3 mm. (4.75) ; head 10.8 mm. (4) ; eye 3 mm. (3.61 ; snout 3 mm. (3.6) ; maxillary 3.8 mm. (2.85) ; in- terorbital 2.4 mm. (4.5) ; dorsal XII, 20; anal II, 20; pectoral 16; ventral I, 2; cirri: supraocular, one simple; narial, single with 4 fingers; nuchal, two singles on each side. Lateral line extends to 2nd dorsal ray. Body in life Vermillion, after capture becopaing almost transparent. Blennius sp.? One specimen taken at night light, July 6, 1932. Length 16 mm. Blennius cristatus Linnaeus One .specimen caught in tidepool, July 9, 1932. Length 24 mm. BALISTIDAE Balistes vetula Linnaeus One seen when diving. MONACANTHIDAE Monacanthus tuckeri Bean Twelve caught in trap in 4 fathoms of water, July 6, 1932. Length 26 mm. Monacanthus hispidus (Linnaeus) One specimen taken at night light, July 7, 1932. Length 19 mm. OSTRACIIDAE Lactophrys quadricornis (Linnaeus) One caught in seine, July 6, 1932. Length 222 mm. Lactophrys triqueter (Linnaeus) One caught in seine, July 6, 1932. Length 145 mm. 222 Zoologica: N. Y. Zoological Society [XIX; 6 TETRAODONTIDAE Sphaeroides spengleri (Bloch) One caught in a dredge, July 11, 1932. Length 31 mm. CANTHIGASTERIDAE Canthigaster rostratus (Bloch) Several seen while diving and with the water-glass. DIODONTIDAE Diodon hystrix Linnaeus One specimen caught in seine, July 8, 1932. Length 280 mm. A New Dwarf Species of Star-gazer FAMILY DACTYLOSCOPIDAE Gillellus quadrocintus, new species Fig. 27. Gillellus quadrocinctus. {Drawing by John Tee-Van) Type: No. 180, Antares Expedition, Union Island, Grenadines, B.W.I., July 12, 1934. Standard length 31 mm. Type in the collection of the De- partment of Tropical Research of the New York Zoological Society. Field Characters: A small Dactyloscopid, pale flesh in color, with head slightly dusky, two dusky lines radiating down and back from the eyes, and four conspicuous, vertical, black bands on the body, the second saddle- shaped, the posterior occupying the caudal peduncle. Fins almost im- maculate. Measurements and Counts: Total length 37 mm.; standard length 31 mm.; depth 6 mm. (5.15 in length) ; head 9 mm. (3.43 in length) ; eye 1.5 mm. (6 in head) ; interorbital space .75 mm. (12 in head) ; snout 1.6 mm. (5.6 in head) ; maxillary 3.3 mm. (2.57 in head) ; pectoral ray count 14; pectoral fin length 8 mm.; pelvic fin count I, 3; pelvic fin length 4.29 mm.; dorsal fin count III-XIV, 15; anal fin count II, 25; caudal fin length 6.43 mm.; caudal fin rays 16, 9 dorsal and 7 ventral. General Body Shape: Head heavy with its dorsal profile sloping gen- tly forward, the ventral steep, following the oblique angle of the mouth. Anterior half of body with profiles almost parallel, narrowing very slightly posteriorly to a thick and abrupt peduncle. 1935] Beebe & Hollister: Fishes of Union L, Grenadines 223 Eyes: Typical of the family, larger than usual, well elevated above the surface of the head and directed at an upward angle of about 90 degrees. Teeth : Small, numerous, even, sharp-pointed, slightly recurved. Narial Tubes: Long, slender, directed forward, arising in front of each eye, about one-third of the eye’s diameter from the orbit. Scales: Type cycloid; count about 40. Lateral Line: Count 20 + 3 + 18 =; 41. Anterior and median part about equal in length, measuring 11.45 mm., respectively. First pore lo- cated midway between the ;drst and second spine of the 1st dorsal with two rows of scales between. The lateral line extends with a slight upward curve to the posterior edge of the first dark body band which is below the twelfth spine of the 2nd dorsal. Here there is only one scale between the lateral line and the base of the dorsal fin. At this point it descends rather abruptly to the exact center of the body and then posteriorly in a straight line. Opercular Fringes: 8. Lip Fringes: 9 upper; 13 lower. The lower cirri are about twice the length of the upper and overlap the upper series with the jaws closed. The upper series is arranged in the following way: right side, there are three evenly spaced along the edge of the pigmented band below the narial tube’ There are three between the pigmented bands in the center of the jaw. On the left side there are two on the pigmented band and one just beyond its edge. In length these cirri are all about equal. When the mouth is closed they are directed upward. The skin in the jaw above is very loose and probably can be thrown forward when the mouth is opened, thus throwing the cirri in a downward position to act as a strainer. The lower series is arranged in the following manner: right side, there are three cirri below the eye outside the pigmented band of the upper series. A small pigmented patch is at the base of the outermost cirrus. One is in the center of the upper pigmented patch, and one on its inner edge with scattered pigment on its base. Two are in the center of the jaw. The left series is identical in position. The shortest cirri are those nearest the angle of the mouth, and these are twice the length of the upper cirri. The length of the lower series increases gradually toward the center of the jaw. Body Bands. There are four conspicuous, broad, dark body bands, separated by three white interspaces posterior to the base of the pectorals. Measuring along the dorsal, the dark bands are approximately 3.5 mm. apart. All of the dark bands commence at the base of the dorsal fins, a light shading of the pigment extending for a short distance up the base of the dorsal elements. The first dark band begins just behind the head and extends along the entire base of the 1st dorsal fin ; the second begins at the fifth spine of the 2nd dorsal fin and extends posteriorly to the base of the twelfth spine. Its dorsal width is twice that of the ventral (5 mm. to 2.1 mm.). In general appearance it is saddle-shaped and, unlike the two other posterior bands, the lower edge does not extend to the ventral outline of the body. It extends over the fifth, sixth, and seventh anal rays but with a distinct light area between. The third body band is rectangular in shape (3.57 mm. wide) and extends from the fourth to the ninth dorsal ray and, ventrally, from the fourteenth to the nineteenth anal ray. Here the pig- mentation fades but there is not the obvious clear area as seen below the second band. The fourth band arises at the posterior edge of the dorsal and anal fins, and covers the entire caudal peduncle. It extends over the bases of the caudal rays and comes to a point, posteriorly, in the mid-line. Anteriorly, the vertical edge is curved slightly forward. The pigmentation is complete dorsally and ventrally. Head Pigmentation: Whole head faintly and irregularly dusky back to the beginning of the first dark band. Darker areas occur close around Zoologica: N. Y. Zoological Society 224 [XIX; 6 the eyes, two broad bands extending down and back from the eyes, and two indistinct spots on the center of the opercles. Fin Pigmentation : The caudal, anal and ventrals are clear. The pectorals have an irregular, median, vertical blotch extending over the rays and membrane of the fourth to the seventh ray. The first dorsal is slightly pigmented or dusky above the dusky area of the head. The rest of the dorsal is clear above the white body areas and dusky above the dark body bands. Dorsal Fins: The origin of the first dorsal fin is on the posterior part of the head. It is a little behind the mid-distance between the posterior edge of the eye and the posterior edge of the dark opercular spot above the base of the pectorals. It is composed of three spines which are all connected with a distinct membrane. The first spine is the longest (2.29 mm.). The sec- ond is slightly shorter (2.15 mm.) and the third the shortest (1.43 mm.). The origin of the second dorsal is directly above the posterior base of the pectoral fin. The anterior spine is heavier and longer (1.72 mm.) than the posterior spine of the preceding fin. This second series is composed of fourteen spines. The length of the spines increases gradually from the an- terior to the center of the series where the longest is 2.86 mm. They become gradually shorter toward the posterior where their length (1.43 mm.) is less than the short anterior spines. There are fifteen rays in the second dorsal. The anterior ray (2,57 mm.) is almost twice the length of the posterior spine just in front of it. The length of the rays increases only slightly in the center of the series and, posteriorly, diminishes to a short ray (1.29 mm.). Anal Fin: This fin is composed of two spines and twenty-five rays. Its origin is below the third dorsal spine of the second dorsal series. The anal extends posteriorly to below the dorsal posterior ray. The longest and heaviest rays are the anterior ones. Ventral Fins: The ventrals have one spine and three rays. The spine is difficult to distinguish from the base of the first ray. The position of the ventrals is jugular and mid-way between the posterior end of the maxillary and the base of the ventralmost rays of the pectorals. Opercular Projection: Between the dorsal end of the pectorals and the lateral line are, one on each side, two fleshy tube-like structures which are heavily pigmented; in fact, the darkest area on the body. Anteriorly, they are partly overlapped by the dorsal end of the opercle and its fringes. They project obliquely backward and downward. These structures may be accessory breathing tubes used in conjunction with the labial fringes when the fishes are buried in the sand. The one specimen of this new species was caught with a dip-net, ten feet from shore, in water one and one half feet deep, with a sandy bottom and overhanging rocks. The color of the bands just after capture was black. Comparison with Other P'orms: Unless we are to erect a new genus for this individual we must ignore, and rightly we think, some of the characters which are supposed to differentiate the genera Gillellus and Cokeridia. The discontinuous dorsal fin sets it certainly apart from Dactyloscopus. In the presence of well-developed labial fringes it is closer to Cokeridia, but this is a distinction of degree, not of kind, for fringes are found, at least slightly developed, in Gillellus semicinctus. It is closest to Longley’s recently described Gillellus rubrocinctus of unknown length, taken in Florida, but is shorter and more robust and with a smaller eye. It differs radically in color, the bands being maroon in the Florida fish but black in our specimen. Ours has in addition four instead of three post-cephalic bands, and these differ in extent, our second body band being about three times as wide as the corresponding one in rubrocinctus. ^orfe Zoological ^ocictp Scientific Publications A completely classified list of the subjects included in each of the finished volumes of Zoologica, and all other publications of the New York Zoological Society will be furnished on application. Address H. K. MITCHELL Manager, Zoological Park 185th St. and Southern Boulevard, New York City 3n&rK Abaco Islands, Bahama Isl., 96, 120, 130, 133 Abbott, Dr. W. L., 119 Abudefduf analogus (Gill), 218 marginatus (Bloch), 217, 218 Acantholis, 116 Acanthuridae, 217 Acanthurus bahianus Castelnau, 217 caeruleus Bloch and Schneider, 217 heliodes Barbour, 217 hepatus (Linnaeus), 217 Acklin’s Bight, Bahama Isl., 119, 120 Acklin’s Island, Bahama Isl., 120 Adams, C. C. and T. L. Hankinson, 143, 174 Aeguidens, 201, 202 latifrons, 143, 149 reproductive habits of, 172 Africa, lizards of, 99 Alaska, Gulf of, 8 Albula vulpes (Linnaeus), 211 Albulidae, 211 Aldaba, V. C., 157, 174 Aldrovandi, Ulisse, 60 Allen, Dr. G. M., 135 Allen, Bryant and Barbour exploration, 90 Alsophis sp., 87, 134, 135-137 Alta Vela Island, Hispaniola, 102, 113 Amaral, Afranio do, 140 Ameiuridae, 173, 174 Ameiurus catus (Linnaeus), 145 melas (Rafinesque), 151 natalis (Le Sueur), 145, 147 nebulosus (Le Sueur), 143-185 (Figs. 12-21 inch) Ameiva sp., 85, 124-127. “Ameiva, Revision of,” by G. K, Noble and Thomas Barbour. 126 Amphibia, 78-80, 89-98, 167 Amphisbaena sp., 85-86, 128-129 Amphisbaenidae, 85-86, 128-129. Amundsen Gulf, British America, 11 Anchoviella platyargyrea (Fowler), 211 Ancistrus, 169, 171 anisitsi Eigenmann and Kennedy, 171 Andros Island, Bahama Isl., 96, 100, 101, 104, 107, 113, 119, 129, 130, 131, 133, 137 Anegada Island, Virgin Isl., 102, 111, 112, 118, 136, 138 Angelichthys ciliaris (Linnaeus), 217 Angola, West Africa, 99 Anguidae, 84, 122-123 Anguilla Island, W. L, 109, 126, 136 Anole, common green, 107 "giant,” 106, 107 green, 108 Anoline stock, offshoots, 105, 106 Anolis sp., 81-83, 106-117 Anse a Galets, La Gonave Island, Haiti, 122, 126 Antarctic waters, 4, 5 Antares (yacht), 209, 211, 213, 214, 215, 216, 218, 221, 222 Antigua Island, W. I., 104, 109, 110, 125, 130, 136, 218 Antillean Reptiles and Amphibians, A Sec- ond List of, by Thomas Barbour, 77-141 introduction, 77 location and status of species, 89-141 systematic table of contents, 78-88 Apogon maculatus (Poey), 215 sellicauda Evermann and Marsh, 215 Apogonidae, 215 Argiinae, 169, 171 Ariidae, 173 Ariids, 157, 159, 160, 161, 162 Ariinae, 169, 170 Aripo heights, Trinidad Island, 66 Aristelliger sp., 80, 100 Arius, 169 aqua-dulce Meek, 162 australis, 160 viaculatus (Thunb.), 162 Armour, Mr., 119 Arntully, Jamaica, 94 Arrhyton sp., 88, 139-140 Arthropods, 55 Asia, lizard of, 99 Aspredinidae, 157, 169, 170, 174 Aspredinids, 165 Aspredo, 164, 169 (Platystacus) , 164-165 Astroblepidae, 171 Astroblepus, 165, 166, 169, 174 longifilis, 166 marmoratus, 166 Atherina stipes (Muller and Troschel), 213 Atherinidae, 213 Atlantic Ocean, bowhead whales in, 10 right whales in, 9-11 sperm whales in, 7, 9, 10 see also Plates I-IV, no. 1 Atwood’s Cays, Bahama Isl., 116, 120 Audantia armouri Cochran, 81, 106 Aulostomidae, 212 Aulostomus maculatus Valenciennes, 212 Australia, tiliqua of, 123 Azores, 12 Bagrinae, 169, 170 Bahama Islands, reptiles and amphibians of, 89, 96, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 107, 108, 113, 115, 116, 120, 121, 122, 127, 129, 130, 131, 133, 137, 141 see also names of individual islands Balaena australis, 9-11 mysticetus, 10, 11 sieboldii, 8 Balistes vetula Linnaeus, 221 Balistidae, 221 Barahona, San Domingo, 94, 101 Barbados Island, W. L, 91, 99, 124, 129, 131, 138 Barbour, Thomas, "Reptiles and Amphib- ians,” Houghton, Mifflin and Co., 89 A Second List of Antillean Reptiles and Amphibians, 77-141 for paged outline see Antillean Rep- tiles and Amphibians Barbuda Island, W. I., 109, 110 Barbus, 191, 193, 194 conchonius, 192, 205 Bat, blood-sucking (so-called), 70-71 carnivorous, 57 insectivorous, 55, 67 sanguineous, 71 sanguivorous, 71 spear-nosed, 55, 56, 72 (Fig. 4, Plate V), opp. p. 68 Bathygobius soporator (Cuvier and Valen- ciennes), 220 Beata Island (D. R.), W. L, 113, 114, . 118, 122, 126, 127, 135, 139 Beck, R. H., 121, 127 Beebe, William, 61 Beebe, William, and Gloria Hollister, The Pishes of Union Island, Grenadines, British West Indies, with the Descrip- tion of a New Species of Star-gazer, 209-224 (Figs. 26 and 27) for paged outline see Fishes of Union Island Belig, Cuba, 124 Belize, British Honduras, 114 Benguela Current, 8 Bering Sea, 8, 11 Bermuda Islands, 91 [225] 226 Zoologica Volume XIX Bertha (bark), 16 Betta, 144, 154, 163, 201 picta (Cuvier and Valenciennes), 159-160 splendens Lissmann, 193 Bier, O. G., 69 Bitter Guana Cay, Exuma Isl., Bahama Isl., 117 Blake Expedition, 140 Blennidae, 221 Blennius cristatus Linnaeus, 221 sp. ?, 221 Bloch, M. E„ 164, 175 Blood, defibrinated, 54, 57, 58, 59, 63, 66-67 Blue Mountains, Jamaica, 94 Boa, 131 Boa sp., 86, 132 Bodianus rufus (Linnaeus), 219 Boidae, 86-87, 131-134 Bomb-lance shoulder gun, 15 Bonaire Island, W. I., 99 Booby Cay, Mariguana Island, 118 Bothidae, 212 Bothrops atrox (Linne), 88, 140 Boulenger, G. A., 170, 175 Bowen, E. S., 151, 175, 201, 206 Bowers, G, M., 157, 175 Brachycephalidae, 80, 98 Brazil, iguana of, 98, 105 Breder, C. M., Jr., 143, 145, 159, 160, 166, 171, 175, 188, 201, 202, 206 Breder, C. M., Jr., The Reproductive Habits of the Common Catfish, (Ameiurus nehu- losus (Le Sueur), with a Discussion of their Significance in Ontogeny and Phy- logeny, 143-185 (Figs. 12-23 inch) for paged outline see Reproductive Habits of the Common Catfish Breder, C. M., Jr. and C. W. Coates, 159, 175, 188, 206 Breder, C. M., Jr. and C. W. Coates, Sex Recognition in the Guppy, Lebistes reticulatus Peters, 187-207 (Figs. 24 and 25) for paged outline see Sex Recognition in the Guppy Breder, C. M., Jr. and R. F. Nigrelli, 201, 206 Bridges, William, 62 British Guiana, 61, 62 lizards from, 124 British Isles, whaling area southwest of, 12 Broch, J., 168, 175 Bromeliads, 91 epiphytic, 89 Buck Island, Virgin Isl., 126 Budgett, J. S., 167, 175 Buffon, G. L., 60, 73 Bufo sp., 78, 90-91 empusus. 89, 91 Bufonidae, 78, 90-91 Bunocephalus, 164, 169 Cabo Cruz, Oriente, Cuba, 124 Cadea sp., 85, 128 Caibarien, Cuba, 134 Caicos Islands, W. I., 103, 116 Caja de Muertos Island, P. R., W. I., 99, 102, 125, 130, 136 Calamus bajonado (Bloch and Schneider), 216 calamus (Cuvier and Valenciennes), 216 Callichthyidae, 158, 169, 170 Callichthys, 166, 169, 170 Callophysinae, 169 Camaguey, Cuba, 114 Cambarus, 159 Canary Islands, 12 “Cannibal iguanas,” 118 Cannouan Island, Grenadines, W. I., 128 Canthigaster rostratus (Bloch), 222 Canthigasteridae, 222 Cap Haitien, Haiti, 132 Cape Horn, 10 Cape of Good Hope, 13 Cape San Antonio, Cuba, 111 Cape Verde Islands, whaling ground of, 13 Caracas, Venezuela, 99 Carangidae, 214 Caranx ( Elaphotoxon) bartholomaei (Cuvier and Valenciennes), 214 {Elaphotoxon) ruber (Bloch), 214 (Paratractus) crysos (Mitchill), 214 (Xurel) latus Agassiz, 214 Carbonnier, P„ 158, 166, 175-176 Carte generale des courants marins, d’apres Krummel, (Fig. 2), 6 Carter, G. S. and B. A. Beadle, 166, 171, 176 Cat Island, Bahama Isl., 133, 141 Catfish, reproductive habits of the, 143-185 for paged outline see Reproductive Hab- its of the Common Catfish Cattle, infected, bitten by vamnire bat, 54 Cay Sal Group, Bahama Isl., 108 Cayman Brae, W. L, 100, 103, 114, 119, 123, 137 Cayman Islands, W. I., 89, 105 Ceiba trees, 113 Celestus sp., 84, 122-123 Central America, reptiles and amphibians of, 90, 91, 98, 99, 100, 105, 106, 141 vampire bat of, 53, 72 Centrarchidae, 188 Cephalopholis fulvus (Linnaeus), 215 Cephalopods, 7 Cereus, 209 “Cero,” 213 Cetengraulis edentulus (Cuvier), 211 Chaco swamps, Paraguay, 167 Chaetodon bimaculatus Bloch, 217 striatus Linnaeus, 217 Chaetodon tidae, 216-217 Chagas, Dr, Emilio, 55 Chamaeleolis chamaeleontides (Dumeril and Bibron), 81, 105 “Chamaeleon,” 107 Chamaelinorops sp., 81, 106 Champlain. Lake, 1 52 Chance, Colonel and Mrs. Edwin M., 209 Characin. African, 167 Chart of ocean currents, (Fig. 2), 6 Charts of whale distribution, 3, 4, 5 (PI. I-IV), No. 1 description ot. 7-11 Chatham Bay. Union Island, Grenadines, 209, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218 photoo-raph of, (Fig. 26), 210 Chelonia. 88, 141 Chilibrillo caves, Chagres valley, Panama, 54 Chubs, 187 Chute, Walter H., 144, 152, 156 Cibao Mountains, Hispaniola, 94 ^ichlasoma, 149 Cichlid, 188 Cichlidae, 144, 159, 171 Cichlids. nest building habits of, 143, 171 oral incubation, 163, 172 Cienaga, Isle of Pines, W. L, 141 Cienfuegos, Cuba, 95, 96, 108 Citharichthys microstomus Gill, 212 Clariinae, 169 Clark, Dr. Herbert C., 53, 54, 57, 61. 69 Clench. Schevill and Rehder exploration, 1930, 106, 121 Clinidae, 220 Clupeidae, 211 Cnemidophorus, 125 Coates, C. W. and C. M. Breder, Jr., see Breder, C. M., Jr. and C. W. Coates Cochran. Miss, 100, 115. 120, 126 Coco Solo, Canal Zone, 67 “Cocoa Toms.” 110 Cokeridia, 224 Colisa, 167 Colombia, 106 Numbers 1-6 Index 227 Colon, 57 Colubridae, 87-88, 134-140 Congo Key, Virgin Is!., 102 Conorhynchus nelsoni Evermann and Golds- borough, 161, 162 Constanza-Jarabacoa trail, Paso Bajito, San Domingo, 91 Constrictor constrictor orophias (Linne), 86, 132 Contia, 140 Coral Sea, 11 Coridae, 219-220 Cortez, Hernando, 70 Corucia, 123 Corydoras, 165, 166, 169, 170, 174 Costa Rica, 105 “Crapaud,” giant, 97 Cricolepis typica (Gundlach and Peters), 85, 124 Crocodylidae, 88, 141 Crocodylus sp., 88, 141 Crooked Island, Bahama IsL, 107, 120, 137 Crotalidae, 88, 140 Crozet Island, Indian Ocean, 15 Crustaceans, 7 Ctenops, 167 Cuba, reptiles and amphibians of, 89-141 Cubitas hills, Cuba, 114 Culebra Island, Virgin Isl., 107, 111, 113, 130, 136, 138 Cumanayagua, Santa Clara Province, Cuba, 95 Cumberland Sound, Baffin Bay, 10 Cundall, Frank, 132 Curasao Island, W. I., 99 Cuvier, B., 60, 73 Cuvier, G. and A. Valenciennes, 164, 176 Cybiidae, 213 Cyclura sp., 83-84, 117-119 Cymothea oestrum (Linnaeus), 214 Cyprinidae, 188 Cyprinodon, 191, 193 variegatus, 192, 205 Dace, 187 Dactyloscopidae, 220, 222-224 Dactyloscopus, 224 tridigitatus Gill, 220 Darlington, Dr., 92, 94, 98, 106, 140 Darlingtonia kaetiana Cochran, 88, 140 Darter, 187 Darting-gun, 15 Darvrin, Charles, 60 Dasyatidae, 209 Dasyatis americana Hildebrand and Schroe- der, 209 Dean, B., 149, 168, 176 Decapterus punctatus (Agassiz), 214 Deiroptyx sp., 81, 106 Delagoa Bay, Indian Ocean, 9, 10 Delsman, H. C. and J. D. F. Hardenberg, 157, 176 Demerara, British Guiana, 124 Demoisella cyanea Poey, 218 marginatus (Castelnau), 218 Desecheo Island, P. R., 136 Desirade Island, W. I., 116 Desmodontidae, 72 Desmodus d’ orhignyi, 72 rotundus, 53-76 rotundus murinus Wagner, 69, 72 (Fig. 3), 68; (Plates V, VI, VII), no. 2 rotundus rotundus Geoffroy, 72 Devilfish, 209 Devincenzi, G. J., 162-164, 171, 176 Diablo Key, P. R., 126 Diaemus youngi (Jentink), 72 Diego Martin cave, Trinidad, 62 Diodon hystrix Linnaeus, 222 Diodontidae, 222 Diphylla centralis Thomas, 72 Diplomystidae, 169 Diquini, Haiti, 93 The Distribution of Certain Whales as Shovi^n by Logbook Records of American Whaleships, by Charles Haskins Town- send, 1-50 (Figs. 1-2, Plates I-IV inch) acknowledgments, 16 bowhead whale, 11 humpback whale, 11-12 list of individuals whose logbooks have been examined, 17 list of institutions whose logbooks have been examined, 17 logbooks of nineteenth century whale- ships from which records were ob- tained, 19-50 method of work, 3-4 northern right whale, 8 southern right whale, 9-11 sperm whale, 4-8 summary of logbook records pertaining to catch of whales, 18 whaling grounds, Indian Ocean, 14 north Atlantic, 12-13 Pacific Ocean, 14-15 south Atlantic, 13-14 Ditmars, Raymond L. and Arthur M. Green- hall, The Vampire Bat: A Presentation of Undescribed Habits and Review of Its History, 53-76 (Figs. 3-11 ; Plates V-VII inch) for paged outline see Vampire Bat Dixon, H. E., 144 Dog Island, Virgin Isl., 136 Dominica Island, W. I., 97, 99, 105, 110, 124, 130, 132, 135, 138, 140 Dominican Republic, W. I., 93 Doradinae, 169 Doras, 169 “Dracula,” 70, 71 Dromicus sp., 87, 137-139 Drymobius boddaerti bruesi (Barbour), 87, 134 Duges, A., 60 Dunn, E. R., 89, 95, 105, 129, 136 Dunn, Dr. Lawrence H., 53, 54, 60, 68, 69 Dunton, S. C., 144 Dussumieriidae, 211 Eel, 167 larval, 211 Eggert, B., 165, 176 Eigenmann, C. H, and R. H., 170, 176 El Guama, Cuba, 90 El Yunque, P. R., 93, 97 Eleuthera Islands, Bahama Isl., 107, 113, 133, 137 Eleutherodactylus sp., 78-79, 91-97 Emydidae, 88, 141 Engraulidae, 211 Ensenada, P. R., 125 Epicrates sp., 86, 131-132 Epinephelidae, 215 Eques pulcher Steindachner, 216 Eubalaena glacialis, 10 Eucinostomus calif orniensis (Gill), 216 gula (Cuvier and Valenciennes), 216 Euleptoramphus velox Poey, 212 Eupemphix, 167 Eupomacentrus fuscus (Cuvier and Valen- ciennes), 218 leucostictus (Muller and Troschel), 218 rubridorsalis Beebe and Hollister, 218 sp. ?, 218 Eupomotis, 201, 203 gibbosus Noble, 193 Euthynnus alletteratus (Rafinesque), 213 Eventognathi, 165 Exuma Islands, Bahama Isl., 100, 101, 117, 137 Eycleshymer, A. C., 143, 150, 176 I Eyerdam, 127, 129 228 Zoologica Volume XIX Factory steamers in whaling, 5 Fairchild, Dr. David, 128 Fajardo, P. R., 126 Falkland Islands, whaling grounds, 10, 13 Fallen Jerusalem Island, W. L, 111, 113 Farlowella, 171 Felichthys, 159, 160, 161, 168, 169 Fer-de-lance, 140 Ficus nitida (Sp. Laurel de la India), 115 Fighting fish, Siamese, 188 Fishery, bowhead, 10 The Fishes of Union Island, Grenadines, British West Indies, with the Descrip- tion of a New Species of Star-gazer, by William Beebe and Gloria Hollister, 209- 224 (Figs. 26 and 27) introduction, 209 list of fishes of Union Island, Grena- dines, 209-222 a new dwarf species of Star-gazer, 222- 224 Fistularia tabacaria Linnaeus, 213 Fistulariidae, 213 Florida, reptiles and amphibians of, 96, 101, 102, 134, 141 Florida Keys, 102, 134, 141 Fluta alba, 167 Fonds des Negres, Haiti, 92 Forbes, S. A. and R. E. Richardson, 143, 176 Fortune Island, Bahama Isl., 119 Fowler, H. W., 143, 147, 168, 176 Frigate Islet, Grenadines, 209 Fundula cyprinodonta, 158 Fundulus, 191, 193 heteroclitus, 192, 205 Gadow, H., 60 Gaff-topsail catfish, 161 Gaige, Mrs., 134 Gainesville, Florida, 96 Galapagos Archipelago, 8 Galeichthys, 169 milberti (Cuvier and Valenciennes), 162 Gambian fishes, 170 Gambusia affinis, 202 Garfish, 147 Garman, S., 116, 128, 136, 140 Gasterosteus, 149 Gecko, 99 Gekkonidae, 80-81, 98-105 Geoffroy, E., 71 Geoffroy St. Hilaire, 60, 74 Gerridae, 216 Gervais, P., 60, 74 “Giant Anoles,” 106, 107 Gill, T. N., 143, 147, 158, 168, 176 Gill, Dr. Theodore, 99 Gillellus, new sp., 220 quadrocinctus, new sp., 222-224 (Fig. 27), 222 rubrocinctus, 224 semicinctus, 224 Girard, C. F., 143, 177 Goat Island, Jamaica, 118, 132 Gobiidae, 220 Goeldi, E. A., 60, 74 Gonatodes sp., 80, 99 Gorgas Memorial Laboratory, Panama, 53, 54 Government Stock Farm, Trinidad, 62, 63 Grand Bahama Island, 120, 137 Grand Cayman Island, W. I., 100, 107, 117, 121 Grande Cayemite Island, Haiti, 129 Grant, Major Chapman, 99, 102, 131 Great Abaco Island, Bahama Isl., 133 Great Inagua Island, Bahama Isl., 100, 122, 125, 126, 131, 133 Greeley, J. R., 152, 157, 177 Green, J., 164, 177 Green Cay, Bahama Isl., 119, 121, 137 Greenhall, Arthur M., 54, 56 see also Ditmars, Raymond L. and Arthur M. Greenhall Green way, Mr., 116 Gregory, W. K., 159, 170, 177 Grenada Island, W. I., 93, 98, 99, 100, 105, 111, 117, 124, 127, 129, 130, 132, 134, 138, 140, 141 Grenadines Islands, W. I., 99, 117, 128, 132 see also The Fishes of Union Island, Grenadines Greyhound (bark), 16 Guadeloupe Island, W. I., 93, 97, 104, 110, 124, 130, 135 Guana Island, Bahama Isl., 105, 111, 112, 113, 126, 131 Guanica, P. R., 125 Guantanamo, Cuba, 90, 91, 112, 115, 134 Guatemala, 129 Gudger, E. W., 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 177 Guerrero, Mexico, 105 Gulf of Mexico, 13 Gulf Stream, 12 Guppy, Sex Recognition in the, by C. M. Breder, Jr. and C. W. Coates, 187-207 (Figs. 24 and 26) for paged outline see Sex Recognition in the Guppy Gymnodactylus iasciatus Dumeril and Bib« ron, 80, 98 Gymnophthalmus pleei Bocourt, 85, 128 Gymnothorax moringa (Cuvier), 211 Haemulidae, 216 Haemulon plumieri (Lacepede), 216 sciurus (Shaw), 216 Haiti, reptiles and amphibians of, 92-140 Hale, H. M., 157, 177 Hancock, J., 166, 177 Hankinson, T. L., 143, 177 Hardenberg, J. D. F., 157, 162, 177 Harengula macrophthalmus (Ranzani), 211 Harpoon, 4, 16 Hassel Island, Virgin Isl., 96, 105 Hassler, Mr. 118 Havana, Cuba, 99, 128 Hematopsia, 70 Hemidactylus sp., 80, 99-100 Hemirhamphidae, 212 Hensel, R., 60, 74 Herradura, Cuba, 115 Herre, A. W., 157 Herrera, A. L., 60 Heterognathi, 165 Hexanemitichthys, 169 australis (Gunther), 167, 169, 170 Hildebrand, S. F. and I. L. Towers, 152, 177 Hirota, S., 168, 177 Hispaniola, W. I., reptiles and amphibians of, 89-141 His])aniolus pratensis Cochran, 84, 122 Hollister, Gloria and William Beebe see Beebe, William and Gloria Hollister Holocanthus tricolor (Bloch), 216-217 Holocentridae, 212 Holocentrus ascensionis (Osbeck), 212 Hoplias, 167 Hoplosternum, 166, 167, 169, 170 litorale Hancock, 166-167 Howell, Edward, 193 footnote Hubbs, Dr. C. L., 162 Humboldt Current, 8 Huxley, T. H., 69 Hydrocyanoides odoe (Bloch), 167 Hyla sp., 78, 89-90 Hylidae, 78, 89-90 Hypophthalmidae, 169 Hypoplectrus unicolor (Walbaum), 215 Hypoptopomatinae, 169 Hypsirhynchus ferox Gunther, 88, 139 Numbers 1-6 Index 229 laltris sp., 88, 140 Ictalurus, 156, 169 punctatus (Rafinesque), 157 Iguana sp., 81, 105 Iguanidae, 81-84, 105-122 Ihering, R., 171, 177 Inagua Island, Bahama Isl., 103, 109, 116 “Incubation gastrica,” 162 Indian Ocean, right whales in, 9 sperm whales in, 7 see also Plates I-IV, no. 1 Institute of Jamaica, Kingston, 132 Iridio bivittata (Bloch), 219 garnoti (Cuvier and Valenciennes), 219 Isle of Pines, 96, 102, 106, 107, 111, 114, 115, 117, 119, 121, 127, 128, 131, 133, 134, 137, 138 Isle Tortue, Haiti, 127, 134, 135, 139 Isle Vache, Haiti, 113, 139, 140 Isopod, 214 Jacmel, Haiti, 120 Jamaica, reptiles and amphibians of, 89-141 Japan, Sea of, 8, 14 Jardin des Plantes, Paris, 120 Jenkinsia lamprotaenia (Gosse), 211 Jeremie, Haiti, 120 Just van Dyke Island, Virgin Isl., 98, 99, 112, 113 Kamchatka, 11 Katsuwonidae, 213 Kendall, W. C., 147, 149, 150, 178 Kentropyx intermedins Gray, 85, 124 Kerguelen Island, Indian Ocean, 10, 15 Key West, Florida, 100 King, Dr. Barry, 69 “Kingfish,” 213 “Kolin,” 95 Koller, O., 157, 178 Kurile Islands, Japan, 8, 11 La Bracita, Hispaniola, 97 La Brea Point, P. R., Ill La Gonave Island, Haiti, 100, 113, 114, 118, 122, 126, 127, 135, 139 La Plata River, Argentine, 13 La Selle massif, Haiti, 123 La Selle Range, Haiti, 93 La Source Island, W. L, 127 Labrador Current, 12 Labridae, 219 Lahrisomus nuchipinnis (Quoy and Gaim- ard), 220 Labyrinthidae, 159, 188 Lacertids, 125 Lactophrys quadricornis (Linnaeus), 221 triqueter (Linnaeus), 221 Lamprey, 187 “Learning curves” for goldfish, 198 Lebistes reticulatus Peters, 187-207 (Figs. 24 and 25) Lee, G., 157, 178 Leiocephalus sp., 84, 106, 119-122 Lepodisiren, 167 Lepomis, 149 Leptocephalus larvae, 211 Leptodactylidae, 78-80, 91-98 Leptodactylus sp., 79-80, 97-98, 167 Leptotyphlopidae, 86, 130-131 Leptotyphlops sp., 86, 130-131 Les Saintes Island, W. I., 110, 135 L’herminier, 120 Liberia, West Africa, 99 Liguanea Plain, Jamaica, 114 Lissmann, H. W., 188, 193, 201, 206 Little Cayman Island, W. I., 103, 119 Little St. James Island, Virgin Isl., 102 Lizard, brush, 114 “Cocoa Bay,” 110 fence, 114 great, 110, 111 ground, 113 house, 99, 102, 114 “Venus,” 107 Logbook records of American whaleships, 1-50 list of individuals whose logbooks have been examined, 17 list of institutions whose logbooks have been examined, 17 list of logbooks from which records were obtained, 19-50 Long, H., 170, 178 Long Island, Bahama Isl., 107,. 113, 133, 137 Loricaria, 169 anus Cuvier and Valenciennes, 171 vetula Cuvier and Valenciennes, 171 Loricariidae, 169, 170, 171 Loricariinae, 169 Loricata, 88, 141 Lovango Cay, near St. Thomas Island, 141 Loveridge, Arthur, 77 Lower California, 12 Luquillo Mountains, P.R., 97 Lutianidae, 215 Lutianus mahogoni (Cuvier and Valencien- nes), 215 synagris (Linnaeus), 215 Mabuya sp., 86, 129 McAtee, W. L. and A. C. Weed, 143, 178 Macrones, 170, 174 gulio Ham. Buch., 165 Macropodus, 167 Madagascar, 12, 15 Madeira, 12 Malopterurinae, 169, 170 Mandeville, Jamaica, 92 Mane, A. M., 157, 178 Mango trees, 110 Mann, Dr. W. M., 93 Manta birostris (Walbaum), 209 Marie Galante Island, W. L, 110, 116, 135, 138 Mariel, Cuba, 99 Mariguana Island, Bahama Isl., 101, 116, 118 Martinique Island, W. I., 91, 93, 98, 99, 103, 116, 120, 128, 129, 130, 131, 138, 140 Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 16 Massif de La Hotte, Haiti, 92, 106 Mastic Point, 129 Matanzas Province, Cuba, 115, 128 Matthewtown, Inagua Island, 103 Mayans, legends among, 70-71 Maynard, Mr., 119 Mediterranean Islands, Eastern, 100 Medusa Island, Grenadines, W. I., 209, 211, 213, 215, 217 Megalopidae, 211 Megaptera nodosa, 11-12 Mellen, I. M., 151, 178 Metzelaar, 212 Mexico, 72, 129 Michigan, University of, 54, 60, 68 Micropoecilia branneri, 202 Migration of whales, 4, 5, 7 Milles, 122 Mina Carlota, Cuba, 95 Mina Piloto, Cuba, 111 Minnows, 187 Mira por vos Cays, Bahama Isl., 120 Miragoane, Haiti, 106 Mobulidae, 209 Molliensia, 203 Mona Island, W. L, 97, 111, 118, 126, 132, 136 Monacan thidae, 221 Monacanthus hispidus (Linnaeus), 221 tuckeri Bean, 221 Mongoose, 77, 92, 97, 117, 124, 127, 129, 133, 135 Montserrat Island, W. I., 91, 93, 110, 124, 135 Morne La Hotte, Haiti, 94, 140 230 Zoologica Volume XIX Morne La Selle, Haiti, 98, 106 Morning Star (bark), (Fig. 1), 2 Mosquito Island, W. I., Ill Mt. La Hotte, Haiti, 94 “Mountain chicken,” 97 Mozambique Channel, 15 Mugilidae, 213 Mullidae, 216 Muraenidae, 211 “Murrina,” 69 Museum of Comparative Zoology, Depart- ment of Reptiles and Amphibians, 77, 104, 105, -110 Myers, Dr. G. S., 162 Myers, Dr, J. G., 110 Myripristis jacobus Cuvier and Valenciennes, 212 Nantucket, Mass., 3 Natrix, Cuban, 134 Natrix compressicauda Kenmcott, 87, 134 Navassa Island, Haiti, 100, 101, 102, 106, 108, 112, 118, 121, 123, 127, 130, 133 Nematognathi, 144, 148, 174 alleged gastric incubation, 162-164 eggs, adherent to abdomen, 164-165 eggs, cast free, 165-166 floating nests of froth, 166-168 oral incubation, 157, 158-162 reproduction, methods of, 157 table of habits, 169 Netuma, 169 Nevis Island, W. I., 91, 104, 108, 109, 110, 125, 137 New Bedford Public Library, 3 New London, Conn. 10 New Providence Island, Bahama Isl., 96, 101, 107, 114, 115, 130, 133, 137 New York Times, 118 Newfoundland Banks, 12 Noble, G. K., 89, 90, 93, 94, 97, 122, 126, 188, 201, 206 Noble, G. K. and Thomas Barbour, “Revision of Ameiva,” 126 Noblella peruviana (Noble), 98 Norops ophiolepis (Cope), 83, 117 Ocean currents, 8 chart of, (Fig. 2), 6 Ocyurus chrysurus (Bloch), 215 Oil, yield of sperm whale, 16 Okhotsk Sea, 8, 11 Ophidia, 86-88, 129-140 Ophioblennius ferox Beebe and Tee- Van, 221 Opladelus, 169, 173, 174 olivaris (Rafinesque), 144, 152-156, 157 (Figs. 22, 23), 185 observations on spawning of, 154-155 Opsanus, 159 Oral incubation in fishes, 144, 157, 158-162, 170 Oriente Province, Cuba, 96, 101, 111, 115, 124 Orinoco Basin, 141 Osgood, W. H., 72 Ostariophysi, 167, 168 Osteogeniosus, 169 Ostraciidae, 221 Otocinclus, 165, 166, 169, 174 Oxyloricaria, 171 Pacific Ocean, right whales in, 9 sperm whales in, 7, 8 see also Plates I-IV, no. 1 Pacificador Province, San Domingo, 90 Palm Chat (Dulus) nests, 92 Panama, 53, 54, 67, 69, 105 Pandura Mountains, P. R., 92 Paraguay, 72, 167 Parasilurus, 169, 170 aristotelis (Garman), 168 Parathunnus atlanticus (Lesson), 211, 212, 213-214 Parker, 128 Parr, A. E., 201, 206 Paso Bajito, San Domingo, 94 Patagonia, 129 Pearson, J. F. W. and E. M. Miller, 147, 178 Pellegrin, J., 157, 178 Pempheridae, 215 Pempheris schomburgki Muller and Troschel, 215 Pennock, Dr., 103 Perch, log, 187 Peru, 8, 98 Peter Island, Virgin Isl., 105, 111, 112, 113, 126, 136 Petit Gonave Island, W. I., 118 Phenacosaurus, 106 Philadelphia Zoological Park, 132 Pholis, 159 Phyllobates limbatus Cope, 80, 98 Phyllodactylus sp., 80, 99 Phyllostoma, 71 rotundum, 71 Phyllostomidae, 72 Phyllostomus, 55 hastatus, 69 hastatus panamensis Allen (Plate V), No. 2 Pimelodinae, 161, 169 Pinar del Rio, Cuba, 90, 96, 106, 115, 128 Pinero Island, P. R., 136 “Pines, wild,” 89 Plana Cays, Bahama Isl., 121 Plankton, 7 Platophrys lunatus (Linnaeus), 212 ocellatus (Agassiz), 212 spinosus (Poey), 212 Platypoeciliidae, 203 Platypoecilus, 203 Plecostominae, 169 Plee, 120 Plee collections, 98, 99 Plica, 106 Plotosids, 157, 168, 169 Plotosinae, 169, 170 Plotosus, 168 Poeciliidae, 202 Point Barrow, Alaska, 11 Polynemidae, 213 Polynemus virginicus Linnaeus, 213 Pomacanthus arcuatus (Linnaeus), 217 paru (Bloch), 217 Pomacentridae, 217-219 Pomacentrus, 149 leucostictus, 159 Port au Prince, Haiti, 134, 135, 139 Pseudemys sp., 88, 141 Pseudoboa cloelia (Daudin), 88, 140 Pseudoscarus guacamaia (Cuvier), 220 Puerto Cananova, Cuba, 111 Puerto Plata, San Domingo, 120 Puerto Rico, reptiles and amphibians of, 91- 141 Quelch, J. J., 60, 75 Querimana curema (Cuvier and Valencien- nes), 213 Rabies, paralytic, 62, 63 Ramsden, Dr. C. T., 90, 111, 112, 115 Redonda Island, W, I., 104, 110, 124 Reeves, C. D., 187, 206 Regan, C. T., 171, 178 Reighard, J. E., 187, 206 The Reproductive Habits of the Common Catfish, Ameiurus nebulosus (Le Sueur), with a Discussion of their Significance in Ontogeny and Phylogeny, by C. M. Breder, Jr., 142-185 (Figs. 12-23 inch) bibliography, 174-179 comparison with certain cichlids, 171- 173 comparison with Opladelus, 152-157 Numbers 1-6 Index 231 comparison with other Nematognathi, 157-171 illustrations, 180-185 influence of captivity, 144-146 introduction, 143-144 spawning, 144-146, 146-152 table of data, 146 summary, 173-174 table of comparative data, 153 Reptiles, see Antillean Reptiles and Am- phibians RhombopUtes aurorubens (Cuvier and Val- enciennes), 215 Ribeiro, A. de M., 171, 178 Richmond, R. W., 16 Roche Croix, Haiti, 140 Roddan, Mrs. Eleanor, 16 Rosen, Nils, 129 Rum Cay, Bahama Isl., 101, 103, 113, 122 Rupiscartes atlanticus (Cuvier and Valen- ciennes), 221 Ryder, J. A., 157, 178 Rypticus saponaceus (Bloch and Schneider), 215 Saba Island, W. L, 93, 100, 104, 105, 109, 137 St. Barts Island, W. I., 109, 136 St. Croix Island, Virgin Isl., 92, 98, 99, 102, 108, 109, 112, 125, 126, 128 St. Eustatius Island, W. I., 93, 104, 108, 109, 124, 137 St. Helena Island, 13 St. John Island, Virgin Isl., 96, 102, 105, 126, 128, 129, 136, 138 St. Kitts (St. Christopher) Island, W. L, 91, 93, 97, 104, 105, 108, 109, 125, 132, 137 St. Lucia Island, W. I., 90, 91, 97, 99, 104, 105, 116, 128, 129, 131, 132, 138, 140 St. Martin Island, W. I., 93, 104, 109, 125, 136 St. Michel, Haiti, 122 St. Paul Island, mid-Atlantic Ocean, 13 St. Thomas Island, Virgin Isl., 92, 97, 98, 99, 102, 105, 111, 112, 113, 117, 126, 128, 129, 136, 138, 141 St. Thomas Parish, Jamaica, 94 St. Vincent Island, W. I., 93, 98, 99, 105, 110, 117, 124, 129, 132, 134 Salarichthys textilis Quoy and Gaimard, 221 Salem, Mass., 3 Salientia, 78-80, 89-98 Saliva of bats, 69 Salt Island, Virgin Isl., 136 Samana (D. R.), Haiti, 93, 104, 134 San Domingo (D. R.), W. I., 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 101, 104, 108, 120, 122, 134, 139 140 Santa Clara Province, Cuba, 95, 115 Santa Marta, Colombia, 68 Santa Marta Mountains, Colombia, 93 Santiago, Cuba, 99, 115 Saona Island (D. R.), Hispaniola, 121, 127 Sardinella aurita Cuvier and Valenciennes, 211 Sargasso region, whaling area of, 7 Sauresia sepoides Gray, 84, 123 Sauria, 80-86, 98-129 Scammon, 11 Scaridae, 220 Scarus croicensis Bloch, 220 gnathodus (Poey), 220 taeniopterus Desmarest, 220 Schilbeodes, 168, 169 Shomburgk, R., 162, 178 Sciaenidae, 216 Scincidae, 86, 129 Scolesaurus sp., 85, 127-128 Scomberomorus cavalla (Cuvier), 213 regalis (Bloch), 213 Scorpaena albofasciata Metzelaar, 217 Scorpaenidae, 217 Scorpion, whip, 55 A Second List of Antillean Reptiles and Amphibians, by Thomas Barbour, 77-141 for paged outline see Antillean Reptiles and Amphibians Semon, R. W., 157, 160, 178 Serranidae, 215 Sex recognition in catfish, 147-148 Sex Recognition in the Guppy, Lebistes reticulatus Peters, by C. M. Breder, Jr. and C. W. Coates, 187-207 (Figs. 24 and 25) bibliography, 206-207 discussion, 198-204 experimental studies, 189-198 mating, 188-189 summary, 204-205 Shaw, G., 60, 76 Shedd, John G., Aquarium, 144, 152, 154 Sheep Cay, Bahama Isl., 131, 137 Shira, A. F., 156, 157, 179 Shreve, Benjamin, 77, 93, 134 Siemel, Sacha, 61 Sierra de Bohoruco, San Domingo, 108 Siluridae, 169, 188 Silurinae, 169, 170 Silurus, 169, 170 giants Linnaeus, 157, 168 Skinks, 129 Sminthillus, 98 Smith, B. G., 187, 206 Smith, H. M., 143, 147, 150, 167, 179 Smith, H. M. and L. S. Harron, 143, 152, 179 Snake, burrowing, 130 fowl, 131 “Snake, thunder,” 133 Soledad, Cuba, 95 Solomon Islands, corucia of, 123 Somaliland, Italian, East Africa, 99 Sombrero Island, W. I., 125 South America, reptiles and amphibians of, 91, 99, 100, 105, 106, 124, 141 Southampton Island, Hudson Bay, 10 Spaldings, Jamaica, 95 Sparidae, 216 Sparisoma abildgaardi (Bloch), 220 chrysopterum (Bloch and Schneider), 220 flavescens (Bloch and Schneider), 220 radians (Cuvier and Valenciennes), 220 Sphaerodactylus sp., 80-81, 101-105 Sphaeroides spengleri (Bloch), 222 Sphyraena barracuda (Walbaum), 213 Sphyraenidae, 213 Spooner, G. M., 201, 206 Squamata, 80-88, 98-140 Star-gazer, Description of a New Dwarf Species of, by William Beebe and Gloria Hollister, 222-224 (Fig. 27), 222 Stead, D. G., 157, 179 Stegastes chrysurus Bean, 218 niveatus (Poey), 218 Steindachner, F., 171, 179 Stickleback, 187 Stoker, Bram, 70, 71 Stonington, Conn,, 3 Stranger’s Cay, Northern Bahamas, 90 Stull, Miss, 131, 132, 133 Sunfish, 188, 203 Svensson, G. S. O., 170, 179 Swainson, W., 60, 76 Swan Island, south of Cuba, 105 Swivel gun, 15 Symbranchus, 167 Syngnathidae, 212 Syngnathus elucens Poey, 212 Synodontidae, 211 Synodus intermedins (Agassiz), 211 Tachysurus barbus (LacepMe), 162 Tandanus, 169, 170 tandanus (Mitchell), 157 / 232 Zoologica Volume XIX Tarentola cubana Gundlach and Peters, 80, 100 Tarpon atlanticus (Cuvier and Valencien- nes), 211 Teiidae, 85, 124-128 Testudinidae, 88, 141 Testudo tabulata Walbaum, 88, 141 “Tete chien,” 132 Tetraodontidae, 222 Thalassoma bifasciatum (Bloch), 219 Thecadactylus rapicaudus (Houttuyn), 80, 100 Thelyphonidae, 55 Thomazeau, Haiti, 122 Thunnidae, 213-214 Tiliqua, 123 Tobago Island, W. L, 62, 77, 105, 111 “Tommy” (vampire bat), 63 Tonga Islands, Africa, 11 Tortola Island, Virgin IsL, 91, 97, 98, 99, 102, 105, 107, 111, 112, 113, 128, 129, 131, 136 Townsend, Charles Haskins, The Distribu- tion of Certain Whales as Shown by Logbook Records of American Whale- ships, 1-50 (Figs. 1-2 ; Plates I-IV inch) for paged outline see Distribution of Certain Whales Trachinocephalus myops (Forster), 211, 214 Trachinotus palometa Regan, 214 Trachurops crumenophthalma (Bloch), 214 Tretanorhinus sp., 87, 134 Triatoma, 55 Trichomycteridae, 169 Trinidad Island, W. L, 53, 62, 65, 66. 77, 93, 99, 105, 120, 129, 132, 138, 140 Trinidad Mountains, Cuba, 96, 108 Trisotropis bonaci (Poey), 215 Tristan da Cunha, 13 Tropidophis sp., 86, 133-134 Trypanosoma hippicum Darling, 69 Trypanosome, cattle resistant to, 53 in human blood, 55 Turks Island, W. L, 115, 116, 118, 121, 131 Tutell, Loren, 144, 154 Typhlopidae, 86, 129-130 Typhlops sp., 86, 129-130 U Cay, Allen’s Harbor, Bahama Isl., 119 Ulaema lefroyi (Coode), 216 Umbra pygmaea, 158, 159 Upeneus maculatus (Bloch), 216 Union Island, Grenadines, description of, 209 Union Island, Grenadines, The Fishes of, by William Beebe and Gloria Hollister, 209- 224 (Figs. 26 and 27) Urich, Professor F. W., 62, 63, 132 Uromacer sp., 87, 134-135 Urrutia, Claudio, 204 Utowana cruise, 1934, 119, 128, 135, 139 Vaillant, L. L., 165, 179 The Vampire Bat: A Presentation of Un- described Habits and Review of its History, by Raymond L. Ditmars and Arthur M. Greenhall, 53-76 (Figs. 3-11; Plates V-VII inch) as carrier of trypanosome, 53 bibliography, 73-76 “desensitization” in bite, 66, 68 feeding of, 57-59, 60-61 (Plate VI), no. 2 motion picture film of, 59 feeding on fowl, 64, 66, 67, 68 on goat, 63-67 head of, (Fig. 3), 68 literature on, 53, 60-61 observations during 1933, 53-62 during 1934, 62-67 physiology of, 67-70 positions of, (Plates V, VII), no. 2 pregnancy of, 57 saliva of, 69 taxonomy, 71-72 tradition, 70-71 walking of, 58, 59, 61 (Plate V), no. 2 Venezuela, 98, 99, 138 Vera Cruz, Mexico, 105 Vieques Island, Virgin Isl., 97, 98, 99, 107, 111, 112, 113, 126, 130 Villarius, 169 Vipan, J. A. M., 166, 179 Virgin Gorda, Virgin Isl., 91, 102, 111, 112, 136 Virgin Islands, 93, 97 see also names of individual islands Viviparous fishes, 187 Vomer setapinnis cubensis Nichols, 214 Water Island, W. L, 102, 105, 111, 126, 141 Watlings Island, Bahama Isl., 103, 107, 113, 119, 122, 130 Watson, Arthur C., 16 Wehekind, J. P. L., 62, 63 Welty, J. C., 198, 207 West Indies, 12, 13, 62, 77, 129 see also names of individual islands Wetmore, Alexander, 123 Wetmorena haetiana Cochran, 84, 123 Whales, distribution of, 1-50 (Plates I-IV), no. 1 killing of, 4-5, 15-16 migration of, 4, 5, 7 records of catches, 10-11, 16, 19-50 Whales, blue, 4 bowhead, 3, 4, 10, 11, 18 California gray, 18 finback, 4 humpback, 3, 11-12, 18 right. North Atlantic, 10, 18 northern, 3, 8, 11, 18 southern, 9-11, 13, 14, 15, 18 sperm, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18 whalebone, 4-5, 7 Whaleships, 10 alphabetical list of American, 19-50 British, records not available, 10 see also Whaling vessels “Whaling grounds,” 4, 7, 10, 12-15 (Plates I-IV), pocket, no. 1 Indian Ocean, 15 North Atlantic, 12-13 Pacific, 14-15 South Atlantic, 13-14 Whaling Museum, Old Dartmouth Historical Society, New Bedford, 3, 16 Whaling vessels, 4, 5 Wied, Prince Maximilian, 71 Wood, Rev. J. G., 61 Woolwich Bay, South Africa, 9, 10 Wrangel Island, Siberia, 11 Wright, A. H. and A. A. Allen, 143, 179 Wright, Charles, 134 Wunder, W., 187, 207 Wyman, J., 164, 179 Xantusidae, 85, 124 Xenocara, 171 Xiphocercus sp., 81, 106 Xiphophorus, 203 Xyrichthys infirmus Bean, 212, 219 psittacus (Linnaeus), 219 splendens Castelnau, 219 venustus (Poey), 220 Young, R. T. and L. J. Cole, 187, 207 Young’s Island, W. I., 134 Yucatan, 100 Zambesi River, E. Africa, 99 Zapata Swamp, Cuba, 141 ay’'': ‘ ■ , l\ J lOD^r^ir 5: s: