204 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OP 



remember his peculiar views concerning the ventral fins.* Objections may 

 be urged against this identification, that Montague would have recognized 

 the Murxnoides gunnellus ; that the proportions represented in his figure are 

 not precisely equivalent to those of that species, and that the critical Cuvier 

 and all succeeding naturalists have failed to notice the identity. I shall only 

 recall the admission that Linnaeus himself, after autopsy, referred one speci- 

 men of the same species to Blmnius {gunnellus) and another to Ophidion (im- 

 berbe) ; that Montague wrote, in the year 1812, and in the infancy of ichthy- 

 ology, when the importance of attention to minutia 1 was less generally appre- 

 ciated than now, and that the identification of his fish with Murxnoides 

 gunnellus was probably stayed by the improbability of his failure to recognize 

 that common species. 



" As Dr. Giinther, in the synonymy of " Gymnelis imberbis,' 1 ^ has represented 

 the ideas of the English naturalists; and, as his work is the last authority 

 referring to it, an analysis and reduction of that synonymy to its proper ele- 

 ments will form a fitting conclusion to these remarks. 



1. MurjEnoidesJ gunnellus ex L. 



Ophidium imberbe L. ; Montag.; Turton, 88; Fleming, 201; Jenyns,48l ; Yar- 



rell, ed. 1, ii. ; ed. 2, ii. 412. 

 Cepolophis Montagui Kaup. 

 Gymnelis imberbis Kaup, Ap. Rich, in Yarrell, ed. 3 (fide Gthr.) 



2. Carapus acus Raf. ex Brun. 

 Ophidium imberbe Lac, pt. (Radial formula and caudal fin of Mursenoide$ 

 gunnellus.) 



3. MurjENa|| anguilla L. or allied sp. 

 "Beardless Ophidium Pennant," Brit. Zool., iii. 398. App., tab. 93. 



* The reference by Dr. Shaw of Vandellius lusitanicus (= Lepidopus caudatus) to the thoracic 

 order, " caused the obscurity ol Vandellius lusitanicus, as no one could have expected to have 

 found an Apodal fish placed in that division. How that naturalist could have fallen into such an 

 error, 1 cannot conceive, unless he considered the pair of ventral scales as rudiments of those fins, 

 or what is commonly attached to the base of the ventral fins of some fishes, as may be observed 

 in many Spari." "I am aware that it has been contended that these abdominal scales are lamel- 

 lated ventral fins. If so, we have yet to learn the definition of a fin in the modern revolution of 

 science. Those who contend for the continuance of VandeUius of Shaw or few the Lepidope&f 

 Risso being continued in the Thoracic order, mas t also constitute a new order for many fishes 

 that have such lamellated appendages, independent of two ventral fins. But I cannot admit of a 

 simple corneous scale, destitute of motion, being a ventral fin." Montague, in Mem. Mem. Soc., 

 ii. 1818, pp. 43-2, 433. 



t Dr. Gunther remarks, that the Gymnelis stigma and G. imberbis "probably do not belong to 

 this genus." 



Gymnelis stigma Ophidium stigma Lay and Benn. (sic) is probably congeneric with and per- 

 haps even closely related to G. viridis ; and it at least greatly resembles some varieties of that 

 variable species. The poor figure and the assignment of " very small" scales to it led me, on a 

 firmer occasion, to think otherwise, like Dr. Gunther: but we must remember that the notes and 

 illustrations of Ophidium stigma were made by an inexperienced naturalist, and that he may 

 have been deceived as to the presence of scales. However, we may also recall that there is a great 

 variation in sqnamation in a genus representing a closely related subfamily, (Lycodes.) 



X The question will naturally arise among those who contend that we should date our nomen- 

 clature from the tenth edition of the Systema Naturae that being the first in which the binomial 

 system is introduced whether we should not replace the name Mura noides, Centronotus, or Gun- 

 nellus by Ophidion. Perhaps this will eventually be done, since the genus was well defined and 

 its diagnosis only applicable to the O. imberbe. Others may contend that Jhe name must be retained 

 for the first species (O. barbatum) in spite of its total disagreement. The decision of this ques- 

 tion may be suspended till the publication of the new rules of the British Association. 



| The name Girapus was first connected with the Gymnotus acus by Kafinesque (Ind.. 1819, p. 

 37, 57), who only referred to that spec ins, although he doubtless intended his genus to correspond 

 with Lacep&de's anonymous second subgenus of Gymnotus, which included the Gymnotus cara- 

 pus L., G. acus L. (= Fierasfer acus Kaup) and G. rostratus L. (= Bhamphichthys rostratus M., 

 T.) A strict adherence to the laws will, however, necessitate the retention of the same for the 

 only species mentioned (C. acus.) 



A Bleeker is doubtless orreet in retaining the name Mureena for the M. anguilla. The name 

 was restricted to the type represented by that species by Bloch, who first subdivided the genus, 

 and the M. anguilla was evidently the one on which Arttdi and Linnaeus based their diagnoses. 



[Sept. 



