3o8 Papers from the Marine Biological Laboratory at Tortiigas. 



In 1835, Ruppell described his Myliohatis eeltenkee from the Red Sea, This 

 ray is, as his figure of the teeth (text-fig. 8) shows, an Aetobatus, and his de- 

 scription as surely makes it narinari. Cuvier (18 17) gives in the atlas of the 

 vohime "Poissons" of his " Regne Animal " a figure (see text-fig. 12) of the 

 teeth of Myliobatis narinari, but his text contains no reference whatever to it. 



As noted elsewhere, Forster collected in the South Seas in 1772-74 a ray 

 which he called Raja edentula. His manuscript, published in 1844, contains 

 a careful description which plainly makes his ray identical with the fish 

 being studied. It has, however, been generally overlooked by authors. 

 Blainville (1816) possibly refers to it when he gives fosteri as one of his ten 

 species of Aetobatus. Cuvier, in "Regne Animal" (edition of 1817), lists 

 Raja 7iarinari, quoting Marcgrave's narinari as a synonym. In a later 

 edition of the same work he gives the name Myliobatis nari?iari. In neither 

 case does he give any description. It should be noted, however, that the 

 earlier reference is in a footnote to the genus Myliobatis. 



Notwithstanding the lack of spots on the head and anterior edges of the 

 pectorals, there seems to be little doubt that Cantor's (1849) Stoasodon 

 (porch or projecting tooth) naritiari is a synonym of our fish. Indeed his 

 giving it the specific name indicates this. Why he introduced a new generic 

 term is unknown to the writer. Following the lead of M idler and Henle, 

 Bleeker (1852) uses Aetobatis narinari, as does Day (1865), though Day's 

 ray lacked the spots on the head. 



Five years later Gunther (1870), from the wealth of material in the 

 British Museum, consisting of ten specimens, two multi-spined tails, one 

 set of large jaws, and two sets of excised teeth, made one species, Aetobatis 

 narinari, and this notwithstanding the fact that the "teeth of the lower jaw 

 are sometimes angularly bent, sometimes nearly straight." Gunther 

 declares that these form such a series that he is satisfied that the differences 

 are entirely individual and in no wise specific. Further he makes all the 

 preceding forms (except Raja edentula, which seems to have been unknown 

 to him) synonymous vj'ith. Aetobatis narinari.^ This decision of this great sys- 

 tematist, based upon the most abundant material since Midler and Henle's, 

 and resulting in the adoption of their nomenclature and its repetition in his 

 "Guide to the Study of Fishes," authoritatively fixed the name until this day. 



Accordingly Klunzinger (1871) named his Red Sea r^iy Aetobatis narinari, 

 though it lacked the spots on the head. Day (1878) also uses the name for 

 Indian Ocean rays, though they also are devoid of cephalic spots. Jordan and 

 Gilbert (1882) prefer this name, as does Douglas-Ogilby (1886). Henshall 

 (1895), however, reverts to Cantor's nomenclature, Stoasodon narinari, for 

 a specimen from the West Coast of Florida. 



Jordan (1895) uses for the Pacific coast form the name Aetobatus narinari, 

 which the present writer believes to be correct, while Jordan and Evermann 

 (1896) prefer the same termination for all American rays of this kind. So 



1 Among these are such definite species as the ray called Raja flagellum by Bloch and Schneider and Aeto- 

 batis flagellum by Miiller and Henle, as well as such doubtful ones as Raja guttata Shaw, Raja guinqueaadala 

 Quoy and Gaimard, to say nothing of such a form as Goniobatis (correctly Myliobatis) macroptera McClelland, 

 which is not even an Aetobatine. All the data available will be given for these forms in the next few pages. 



