NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA. 121 



already remarked, it should properly have been referred by Lacepede to his 

 genus Bostry choides, which was distinguished from his Bostrychus by the pre- 

 sence of only one dorsal fin. 



In 180(5, M. Dumeril published his " Zoologie Analytique, ou Methode 

 Naturelle de Classification des Animaux." In the ichthyological portion of 

 the volume, the genera of Lacepede are adopted, but the name of Bostrychusis 

 abolished on account of its previous application by Geoffrey to a genus of 

 coleopterous insects, and that of Bostrichtes or Bostrichthys is substituted in its 

 stead. The characters given to the genus are the same as those of Lacepede. 



In 1815, Rafinesque published his " Analyse de la Nature, ou Tableau de 

 l'Univers." In this volume there is first introduced into the seventh family 

 of the system {Petalomia,) and into the first sub-family (Cepolidia) the Bos- 

 trychus of Lacepede under the name of Bostrictis, and the Bostrychoides under 

 the name of Pterops, and these are interposed between Cepola and Trachypte- 

 rus on the one hand, and on the other Tasica Raf., and Lepodopus, while Gym- 

 netrus and a number of genera founded on more or less perfect specimens of 

 Trachypterus are placed in a second family called Gymnetria. Again the Bos- 

 trijchi and Bostrychoides are introduced under the new name of Ictiopogon for 

 Bostrychus, and Pterops for Bostrychoides into a twenty-third family called Pan- 

 topteria, and into a third sub-family (Anguillinia). The family and sub- families 

 contain a singular and most unnatural reunion of the most widely distinct 

 types ; apodal Scombroids and Xiphioids are mingled with apodal Blennoids 

 and Comephorus and Mastacembelus Gron, Ammodyles L., Ophidium L., and An- 

 guilla are thrown together in the same family. Rafinesque doubtless derived 

 the idea of placing the last named genera in the family of "Pantopteria " ot 

 apodal fishes from a remark of Lacepede, who saw no ventrals represented 

 in the figures of his Bostrychi, and therefore suggested that none might exist. 



Thus, on the authority of the figure of a Chinese painter, unacquainted with 

 Ichthyology, three distinct generic names, besides orthographical modifications 

 of two of them, had been formed for a fish which no naturalist had ever seen. 

 "Without criticism and without judgment, it had been referred to the systems 

 of the various authors, and one of them had placed it in two distinct orders in 

 the same work. After the last of these works, the problematical genus was 

 allowed to rest, and no naturalist has since paid attention to it. 



The first critical ichthyologist who examined the grounds on which the 

 species was founded, was M. Valenciennes. That excellent naturalist, like 

 his predecessors, only knew the species by the Chinese painting. Judging 

 from this alone, he recognized its affinity to the Gobioids, and expressed the 

 belief, from its form, that it was certainly a Gobius, and therefore called it 

 Gobius sinensis, but was careful to observe that he could neither see the 

 ventral fins, nor count the rays of the others. 



The first ichthyologist by whom the species was seen and described from 

 nature was Sir John Richardson. That gentlemen, in the Ichthyology of the 

 Voyage of H. M. S. the Sulphur, gave a description of it, referring it, as a new 

 species, to the genus Philypnus, under the name of P. ocellicauda. He after- 

 wards, in the same work, published his belief of its identity with the Bostry- 

 chus sinensis of Lacepede, and adopting the specific name of that author, 

 called it Philypnus sinensis. In the same part, he has given a very good 

 figure of the species. 



Subsequently, Dr. Bleeker, in his monograph of the Gobioids and Blennoids 

 of the Sundamulluccan Archipelago, described a fish, which he called Philyp- 

 nus ophicephalus, at the same time doubtfully placing as a synonyme, 

 the Philypnus ocellicauda of Richardson. He afterwards appeared to have 

 become satisfied of the identity of the two species, and adopting the older name 

 of Richardson, quoted his own as a synonyme. 



Although this sj)ecies is nearly allied to the true Phi lypni, it differs too much 

 from those species to be a natural member of the same genus. It has therefore 



I860.] 



