FISHES OF LAKE SUPERIOR. 337 



until we possess original specimens, is the only means of preserving 

 their nomenclature intelligible. 



The reforms we have proposed to introduce among the species 

 described below, are of a nature to excite the attention of the natur- 

 alists of this continent, and to induce those who may find them- 

 selves in favorable circumstances to observe minutely, and to 

 collect materials which may some day serve as the basis for a special 

 work on the j^enus. 



The Coregonus dupeiformis was described for the first time by 

 two authors simultaneously, who have each given it a particular 

 name. The question of priority might be contested ; and what 

 shows that subsequent authors disagreed on this point is, that some 

 adopted the name given by Lesueur, others that of Mitchill. Natur- 

 alists have now agreed to adopt the name dupeiformis, it having 

 the priority of a few weeks, and being also the more appropriate to 

 this species; and the figure of the Fauna of New York, though 

 leaving still much to be desired," is however sufficient to distinguish it 

 in the present state of science. In the same year, Dr. Kirtland pub- 

 lished another figure, which appeared in the Journal of the Natural 

 History Society of Boston, IV., PI. 9, f. 1. It being much inferior 

 to that of Dr. Dekay, I have omitted it in the synonymy ; it seems 

 really to me in contradiction with the other quotations. I have cited 

 the description, because it is literally copied from Lesueur. I should 

 not be surprised however, if the specimens which Dr. Kirtland has 

 had under his eye belonged to another species, though it is impossi- 

 ble to decide this by means of the figure. Richardson also repro- 

 duced the original description of Lesueur, not having seen the 

 species himself. 



In truth, the history of this species has remained almost what it 

 was in 1818. Dr. Dekay, who has revised the species in nature, 

 does not complete its description, limiting himself to a mention of 

 the most prominent traits. Finally, M. Valenciennes himself is still 

 more brief. I believe, moreover, that he is mistaken when he con- 

 siders C. lucidus Rich, as identical with C. dupeiformis. It would 

 rather be with 0. albus Lesu. that it ought to be compared, and to 

 which it is nearly related ; but the position o the eye, a smaller 



23 



