60 



PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OP 



1. 

 2. 

 3. 

 4. 



have restricted Echeneis to the genus typified by E. naucrates and called that 

 one typified by E. remora, Remora, which name Dr. Bleeker has since ac- 

 cepted. On examining the works of Linnaeus and Artedi, I find, however, 

 that E. rnnora was the only species referred to that genus by Linnaeus in the 

 earlier editions of the Systema Naturae, and by Artedi ; and that in the later 

 editions, Linnaeus placed that species at the head of the genus. The E. re- 

 mora must consequently be regarded as the type of the genus, and a new 

 name (Leptecheneis) conferred on E. naucrates. The genera of Echeneidoidae 

 will then be known by the following names : 



REMORSE. 



Echeneis Remora L. 



Echeneis L., Art. Type, Echeneis remora L. 

 Remoropsis Gill. Type, Echeneis brachyptera Lowe. 

 Rhombochiius Gill. Type, Echeneis osteochir Cuv. 



Remilegia Gill. Type, Echeneis australis Bznnet = Echeneis scutata 

 Giinther. 



LEPTECHENEIDES. 



5. Leptecheneis Gill. Type, Echeneis neucrates L. 



6. Phtheirichthys Gill. Type Echeneis lineatus Menzies. 



In a Synopsis given in the Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sci- 

 ences of Philada., for April, 1862, (p. 239,) an analytical table is given, in 

 which the genera are distributed as follows : 



Echeneides (Echeneis = Leptecheneis, Phtheirichthys.) 

 Remorae (Remora = Echeneis, Remilegia.) 



Subsequently, (op. cit., 1863, p. 8S,) the genera Remoropsis and Rhombo- 

 chirus weie added. 



The genus Remilegia is known to me chiefly through the excellent figure 

 accompanying Giinther's valuable account of the family in the " Annals and 

 Magazine of Natural History," (vol. v. 1860, pp. 386402.) On the other 

 hand, I have enjoyed the opportunity of examining two types, Rhombo- 

 chirus and Phtheirichthys, not seen by that gentleman. 



While fully appreciating the great service rendered to science by Dr. Giin- 

 ther in reducing the synonymy of the present family, and in many respects 

 agreeing with him in his views regarding the limits of the species and their 

 synonymy, I am compelled to differ from him, especially regarding the 

 nomenclature of the species called by him Echeneis Holbrookii Gthr., and E. 

 scutata Gthr., believing that both had long previously received names known, 

 indeed, to him, but referred to species which they did not really represent. 



Echeneis Holbroohi of Giinther, Cat., should have been called Echeneis albi- 

 cauda, as it is the Echeneis albicauda of Mitohill. Mitchill's name is, indeed, in- 

 cluded, with special emphasis, in the synonymy of Giinther's Echeneis nau- 

 crates (Leptecheneis neucrates), but the following juxtaposition of all essential 

 characters given by both authors will show the incorrectness of this view : 



" E. naucrates." " E. Holbrookii." u E. albicauda." 



Disk "(21) 22-25 (26)" 

 " The length of the 

 disk 4A 4 4 in the to- 

 tal or twice the width 

 of the body between the 

 pectorals." Gthr., ii. p. 

 384. 



Width to length (= 1: 

 4 4 | X 2) = 1 : 9 



-Si ' 



Disk "21." 



"The length of the 

 disk is 3 4 iu the to- 

 tal, or twice the width 

 of the body between the 

 pectorals." Gthr., ii. 

 383. 



Length to width = 1 : 

 (3 | X 2) 7 |. 



Disk "21." 

 " Length twenty inches 

 and a half; breadth al- 

 most three." Mitohill. 



Length to width 



(20i -r 3 



:)6|. 



[March 



