FLOT-XDERS OF GENUS PARALICHTHYS AST) RELATED GENERA 



303 



Nomcnclafvre. — In naiuiiiir tliis species Jonhiii 

 and Goss (1889) were anticipated by Jenyns 

 (1842) who describes a specimen that evidently 

 lielongs to tlie same species under the name of 

 Phitcxsa orblgnyava; as shown by his statement 

 which agrees with this species, as follows: "Ujiper 

 or eye side of the body slifrhtly roufrh. with the 

 scales finely ciliated; under-side smooth, the s<'ales 

 on this side not ciliated." Norman (l'j;57) re- 

 examined Jenyns' specimen, found it to have 10 

 pi 11 rakers on the lower limb, and he states that it 

 •'should most probably be placed here [under 

 pafaf/oninis].''^ The question now is, what is the 

 status of the name orhignyanaf Most authors fol- 

 lowing Jenyns and Valenciennes, who used the 

 name orbignyaita. either as a valid name or in 

 synonymy, jjossibly emploj-ed it not in accordance 

 witii the international rules. 



The geneially accepted dates of publication of 

 Jenyns' woik (Zool. Voy. Beagle), and D'Or- 

 bigny's work (Voy. Amer. Merid.) where Valen- 

 ciennes descrilies his orhigmjana, are those given 

 on the title pages, namely, 184-2 and 1847, respec- 

 tively. However, Jenyns in his supposedly earlier 

 work refers in sevei'al places to the atlas of D'Or- 

 bigny"s work. Under his account of PJafessa 

 orbignyana which he ascribes to Valenciennes, 

 with a query, and cites the plate of that author, 

 Jenyns states : "This species agrees so well with the 

 figure of the P. Orbignyana in D'Orbigny's Voy- 

 age, that I have little hesitation in considering it 

 I lie same, — but as no description of this last has 

 been yet published, it is still possible I may be 

 mistaken." An explanation of this discrepancy is 

 offered by Norman (Monogr., p. 71, 19:54) who 

 states : "The fact that Jenyns quotes Valenciennes' 

 name in 1842 ap[)ears to be due to the earlier pub- 

 lication of the Atlas of D'Orbigny's voyage." 

 Norman's interpretation is reasonable. However, 

 there may be yet another explanation. Jenyns 

 might have examined the originals or the proofs 

 of the plates before they were formally issued in 

 such manner as to reasonably constitute "publi- 

 cation'" that may be used in determining priority. 

 In that case, the name orbignyana as used by Jen- 

 yns is a manuscript name, and according to Opin- 

 ion 4 of the International Conunission must be 

 dated from that author's work and apjilied to that 

 species represented by the specimen described by 



him. regardless of the fact that he cites it with a 

 query, thus: "Platessa Orbignyana. Val. ?" 



It is of course well known that the date on the 

 title-page of a work often does not represent the 

 true date of its issue. But in practice we must 

 assume the published date is correct, unless un- 

 mistakable proof to the contrary is adduced. 

 Otherwise, any stability in nomenclature will be 

 impossible to attain, in some cases. It may require 

 considerable research to determine the correct date 

 of publication of some works, and in some others, 

 older works especially, a most extended search 

 may prove to he a labor in vain. 



The status of Platessa orbignyana of Valen- 

 ciennes cannot be determined now. The entire 

 description consists of a single sentence, as fol- 

 lows : "Nouvelle esfwce de limande caracterisee par 

 la force des dents anterieures." This is of course 

 inadequate to determine the species. At the most, 

 it shows that he jjrobably had a species of Paralich- 

 thys. The figure shows that it was drawn from a 

 specimen representing a species of Paralichfhys, 

 but it is not suflicient for a definite, specific identi- 

 fication. It shows 74 dorsal rays, 55 anal rays, and 

 7.3 oblique rows of scales over the lateral line. The 

 dorsal and scale counts agree with the two species 

 here -designated as patago-nicus and brasilienmii. 

 and the anal count more nearly agrees with the 

 latter; but this does not offer satisfactory evidence 

 regarding the disposal of Valenciennes' name. 

 Mr. Paul Chabanaud kindly i-eplied to my inquii-y 

 regarding the type, stating that it camiot be 

 located. 



On the assumjition that Jenyns' use of that 

 name has priority, it is not of much importance 

 to determine Valenciennes' later use of the same 

 name, except with respect to the proper place- 

 ment of the synonymy. But, should it be defi- 

 nitely proved that, as suggested by Norman, 

 Valenciennes' use of the name orbignyana has 

 priority, its proper disposition becomes a matter 

 of importance. It may be taken to be what it 

 practically is: representing an unidentifiable 

 species. It may also be suggested that later re- 

 visers be followed: but there may be differences 

 of opinion as to which one of the later revisers 

 to follow. 



Assuming that Valenciennes' plate was pub- 

 lished earlier, Jtnyns (1842) is the first reviser; 

 but he cites Valenciennes' name with a query, and 



