PISO (1648), in his Historia Naturalis Brasiliae, gives a rough plate that it is possible to identify as the Atlantic sailfish, Istiophorus americanus Lacepede. This is accompanied by a short description in which the author, Marcgrave, names it as Guebucu brasiliensibus. There was no systematic description of any of the genus, however, until Broussonet (1786), working from an East Indian specimen in the British Museum, described it as Scomber gladius, recognizing its affiliation with the mackerels. Later Lacepede (1803) established the genus Histiophorus for the reception of the species. Cuvier and Valenciennes (1831) ignored Broussonet, and assigned the name Histiophorus indicus to the British Museum specimen, and established another species, Histiophorus americanus, on the strength of Marcgrave's description, thus differentiating the American form from that of the Indian Ocean. None of these authors, with the exception of Marcgrave, had opportunity of examining the Brazilian specimen; yet it seems to have been conceded from the description given by him that this fish deserved separation from the Oriental fish of the genus. However, Gunther discarded the name americanus and assumed the Atlantic fish to be identical with that of the Indian Ocean. Most of the confusion originated through lack of sufficient material, and though De La Sagra (1853) and Poey (1858) both stated that the fish was to be found about Cuba, and Schomburgk (1848) included it in his list of fishes of Barbadoes, it was not until 1872 that any modern ichthyologist had opportunity to examine a specimen. In that year a skeleton and plaster cast from a fish taken at Newport, Rhode Island, were presented to the National Museum. In March, 1878, 2 more were taken from a boat running between Savannah, Georgia, and Indian River, Florida, and were brought to the Savannah market, where they occasioned much comment. In 1873 a mutilated specimen was brought from Key West to New York. This constitutes the earlier history of the species, as given by Goode (1880). Little was known about the fish for a good many years more, and it was not until the beginning of its popularity as a game fish that further information was acquired. The greatly increased interest in this type of angling has made available much data, particularly with regard to its range and seasons of occurrence. The following material, compiled on the Texas coast, has not been, as far as can be determined, recorded prior to this note. Combined with it is some material from the waters to the east and to the south.1
Read full abstract