556 KOTE ON THE GENUS APURITIS, C.V., 



Thirty years later the same author writes as follows* : — " On 

 subsequently endeavouring to diagnose Eleginops, the author 

 became convinced that there was no generic difference between it 

 and Eleginus, and that the two nominal species wei^e probably the 

 young of the typical Eleginus." 



In the same paper Gill demonstrates that the generic name 

 Eleginvs, Cuv. it Val. 1830, was anticipated by Fischer, who, in 

 1813, proposed it for the accommodation of the Gadus navaya of 

 Kolreuter, giving an excellent generic diagnosis accompanied by 

 a good figure of the fish. This of course necessitates the sup- 

 pression of the name Ehginus as applied to the notothenioid 

 genus, for which, however, Eleginops, Gill, may conveniently be 

 retained, though I am not aware that the genus has ever been 

 properly characterised by that author. 



Having now provided a suitable generic name for the two 

 South American species described by Jenyns, it devolves on 

 us to determine by what name our Australian fishes should be 

 designated. 



None of the authors above referred to appear to have lieen 

 aware that twenty-seven years previous to its use by Cuvier and 

 Valenciennes the term Ajyhritis had been employed hy Latreillef 

 as a name for a genus of dipterous insects, and is consequently 

 inadmissable when applied to a fish. 



To further complicate the already sufficiently confused 

 synonymy of these fishes Berg,| recognising the invalidity of 

 Aphritis, proposes to rename the notothenioid genus Phricus, and 

 catalogues one of Jenyns' species as Phricus ])07-ostcs, while 

 acknowledging the correctness of Gill's conclusions by allotting 

 the former author's Aphritis undidatus to a place in the synonymy 

 of Eleginus maclovinus. But since Berg does not recognise the 

 generic difference between Aphritis urvillii and Phricus porosus,. 



* Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus. xiv. 1891, p. 305. 

 t Nouv. Diet. d'Hist. Nat. ii. p. 231, 1804. 

 J Ann. Mus. Buenos Aires, iv. 1895, p. 65. 



