1896. .SOME NEW BOOKS. 341 



been widely separated. The alliance of this group with the Serraninae 

 is at first startling, but there is certainly a superficial resemblance to 

 Callanthias, a universally-recognised genus of the Serranids, and we 

 are even prepared to discount the value of the interruption of the 

 lateral line by the characteristics of Callanthias. We may, therefore, 

 thank Mr. Boulenger for the approximately true position of the group, 

 for the ascertainment of which he had the skeleton of one species — 

 Pavaplesiops meleagris. This being conceded, the differences between 

 Mr. Boulenger and American naturalists would be reduced to 

 differences of valuation simply, namely : — 



Boulenger. Americans. 



[Centrarchidae. 

 Centrarchidae ... ... ... ■] Elassomidae. 



(Kuhhidae. 

 Percidae ... ... ... ... Percidse. 



Serranidae \ 



Serraninae I ... ... ... Serranidae. 



Grammistinae) 



Priacanthinae ... ... ... Priacanthidae. 



Centropominae ... ... ... Centropomidae. 



This is quite a satisfactory agreement and a great improvement 

 over the previous condition. 



The genera admitted by Mr. Boulenger are as great improve- 

 ments over those generally adopted as are the families. No other 

 ichthyologist, except Bleeker, has been equally fortunate in appre- 

 ciating the characteristics and relations of the numerous Indo-Pacific 

 and Anthias-like forms. Many, however, will be disposed to delimit 

 and sub-divide some large genera, such as Epinep helit s a.nd Serramts, but 

 even here little more will be required than to elevate his sub-genera to 

 higher rank, although a few of those may be sub-divided. Perhaps 

 there will always be such differences of opinion, and when so much 

 may be said on both sides, dogmatism is out of place ; it is even 

 possible that Mr. Boulenger may be more nearly in the right than 

 those who have been more radical. It is not likely, however, that his 

 views will prevail immediately everywhere. 



The nomenclature of Mr. Boulenger's work is as good as the 

 system. He is generally obedient to rules, and the differences 

 between him and others likewise amenable to laws depend chiefly on 

 the nature of those laws. Mr. Boulenger adopts the twelfth edition 

 of the Systema Naturae as the starting point of binomial nomen- 

 clature, demands a diagnosis (and not merely a typonym) for every 

 new genus, and requires that the name shall accord with Latin usage 

 and be appropriate. 



For one reason or another, seven of the genera of the new 

 volume will be subjects of differences of nomenclature. These are: — 



Page Boulenger. Diverse. 



50 Lucioperca, Flem., 1822. Stizostedion, Raf., 1820. 



104 Aspvo, C. v., 1828. Zingel, Cloquet, 181 7. 



109 Acerina, C, 1817. Gymnocephalus, Bl., 1795. 



133 Ctenolates,Gunth.,iS'yi. Plectroplites, Gill, i8y2. 



144 Pomodon, Boul., 1895. Hemilutjanus, Blkr., 1876. 



271 Cromileptes, Blkr., 1874. Sevvanichthys, Blkr., 1859. 



306 Gilhertia, J. & E., 1890. Hypoplectrodes, Gill, 1862. 



Which ones of these alternative names shall be adopted time 

 alone can tell. We sympathise with Mr. Boulenger as to several 

 cases, but feel compelled to adopt the other names, although dis- 



