304 



FISHERY BULLETIN OF THE FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 



there may be some question whether his restric- 

 tion is to be accepted. The next reviser is Giin- 

 ther (1860) who phices both Valenciemies' and 

 Jenyns' references under his account of Pseiido- 

 rliombus dentatws with a query (possibly his ac- 

 count is based primarily on a specimen of the 

 present species, but Norman, 1937, is not certain 

 regardino; its placement). Since Giinther doubt- 

 fully cites his synonymy, it may also be ques- 

 tioned whether his action constitutes a definite 

 restriction of the name orbignyana. On the 

 other hand, he associates botli Valenciennes' and 

 Jenyns' references under one heading, and he may 

 be said to have restricted both accounts to one 

 species. Since Jenyns' description includes state- 

 ments pertinent to its identification and his speci- 

 men is still in existence enabling a definite deter- 

 mination of its status, this is probably the best 

 disposition that may be made of Valenciennes' 

 name &vhig7iyana. That is, accept Giinther's re- 

 strictions of both accounts to the same species, 

 and restrict the name orVignymia to that species 

 renresented by Jenyns' specimen, the status of 

 which is now detei'ininable. 



Still later revisers are as follows: Jordan and 

 Goss, 1889 place orhignyana in the synonymy of 

 hrasiliensis, and the same course is followed by 

 Jordan and Evermann. 1898. Norman (1934) 

 applies the name orhignyana to that species here 

 designated as brasiliensis and switches the name 

 hrasiliensis to another species. The conflicting 

 use of that name by these authors is apparently 

 not in consonance with all the facts in the case 

 or with the most reasonable usage indicated on a 

 consideration of the various points involved. 



On the basis of the evidence now available 

 Jenyns' use of that name should evidently have 

 preference, his specimen becomes the type of this 

 species, and the name orhignyana is to be pi'operly 

 applied to it. Even assuming that orhignyana of 

 Valenciennes has priority, its apparent best dis- 

 position is also to apply it to this species. Never- 

 theless, I continue the use of the name patagonacus 

 for the following reasons: (1) It is not altogether 

 certain which one of the later revisers is to be fol- 

 lowed in disposing of Valenciennes' orhignyana. 

 (2) The status of the material here gi'ouped under 

 this name is not entirely certain as discussed above, 

 and it seems best to postpone this change of name, 

 which must be confusing at first, until the status 



of the species is thoroughly cleared. (3) The name 

 patagonicus was more frequently used for this 

 species than any other name. Also, that name ap- 

 parently was used for no other species and its 

 continued use for this species will not lead to con- 

 fusion. (4) The name orhignyana, either as a 

 valid name or as a synonym, was generally ap- 

 plied by authors to other species than the present 

 one and its substitution for this species would 

 lead to further confusion. 



PlntrKxa orhipviKnin Jf:MYNS, Zool. Vny. Beagle 4: 137. 

 1S42 (Bnliia Blauca). — Valenciennes, Voy. Amer. Merid. 

 D'Orbiguy 5 (2, iwiss.) : 10, pi. 16, fig. 1, 1S47 (Brazil). 



Psevdorhonihiis dcntafug GtJNTHEK (not Linnaeus). Cat. 

 Fish. British Mus. 4: 425, 1862 ("Probably brought by 

 Capt. KiTig from Port Famine" ; specimen possitily belong- 

 ing til this species; acc<iuiits of preceding two authors 

 cited ) . 



I'dralirhthya pnlagonhns Jordan and Goss, Kept. U. S. 

 Coniiii. Fish. lss(i: 24.") and 248, 1880 (east coast of 

 Patngonia, types in Museum of Comparative Zoology). — 

 Beri;, An. Mus. Nac. Buenos Airas 4: 77, 189.^ (Bahia 

 Blanca and Mar del Plata, Argentina : Montevideo, Uru- 

 guay). — E^'ERMANN and Kendall. Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus. 

 31: 107, lltOO (Buenos Aires market). 



Paralichthiix hicijclophorua Miranda Riheiro, Arch. 

 Mus. Nao. Itio de Janeiro 17 (Heterosouiata) : 14, photo., 

 191.") (Rio de Janeiro market). 



PdrallcJithijs pittdtfoiiiciit Devincenzi, An. Mus. Nao. 

 Montevideo (2) 5: 278. 1!)24 (Urugu.-iyi. — -Mauini. Rev. 

 Soc. Argentina Cienc. Nat. 9: 454, 1921) (Puerto Quequen, 

 Argentina). 



Pdnilirlithifs hnjsilirnsis Norman (in part), Monogr. 

 Flatfishes, p. 77. fig. 44, 1934 (outline figure of type 

 specimen of pntdf/niiiriis published). 



I'driilkhthiix hicjirlophorus Norman, ibid., p. 78 (after 

 original account). — McDonagh. Kev. JIus. La I'lata 34: 

 56. 19:M (Mar del Plata, Argentina). 



Paralichthys pdtagonifus Ginsburg, Jour., Washington 

 Acad. Sci. 26: 132, 19:^6 (stated to represent a distinct 

 species and that hiciirlnphortis is probably the same). — 

 Norman, Disc. Rept., 16: 133, 19.37 (Buenos Aires). 



PARALICHTHYS HILGENDORFII 



This species is based on a single, malfonned 

 specimen, 273 mm., from Juan Fernandez, Chile. 

 The original description gives the following perti- 

 nent specific characters. Scales ctenoid on eyed 

 side, cycloid on blind side; about 62. Gill rakers 

 9 on lower limb of first gill arch; 6 on upper limb, 

 the 4 anterior ones rudimentary. A. 61 ; D. 75 ; 

 pectoral 2 in head with 11 rays. Dorsal origin 

 over anterior margin of eye. Maxillary some- 

 what less than 214 in head; reaching to under pos- 

 terior margm of orbit. Dextral. Eyed side 

 grayish bi'own with a fine dark sprinkling. 



