56 



BERYCID.E. 



And lastly, in the year 1829, it was included by MM. Ciivier and Valen- 

 ciennes in tlio third volume of their Histoire, p. 229, under the name im- 

 posed, and with an exact and faithful abstract of the characters assigned, by 

 its original describer in his text and figure ; whilst its proper place as to 

 affinity is no less accurately for the first time indicated, by its collocation 

 next to Beryx, in the Cuvieran family Percida. 



It is to be regretted that on the discovery of a second species of this ge- 

 nus at Nice, in the summer of the same year 1829, these last-named au- 

 thors should not at once have admitted its congeneric affinity with Trach- 

 ichthys australis, Shaw ; instead of placing it under a new generic appel- 

 lation (Hoplostcthus), in another family, Triglida. The mere presence or 

 absence of teeth upon the vomer, were in either fish, considering their affini- 

 ties, a very unimportant character ; and the cheek assuredly is not more 

 cuirassed in one of these fishes than in the other. Nor is it again more so 

 in either, or in Monocentris, although this is also placed by MM. Cuvier 

 and Valenciennes amongst Triglidee, than in many other genera placed 

 by these authors notwithstanding, like Trachichthi/s, in Pei-cidse. 



In fact, these ichthyologists have not only themselves remarked the 

 resemblance of their Hoplostethus Mediterraneus with the Percidal genus 

 Mi/ripristis, but proceed to say, " An reste, tout nous porte a croire main- 

 tenant qu,e le Trachichte de la Nouvellc-Hollande, dont nous avons parle 

 cFapres Shaw dans notre troisieme volume (p. 229), est du meme genre 

 que notre Hoplostethe ; il en a la forme, les epines scapulaire ct preoper- 

 culaire, les nombres de rayons aux ouies et aux ventrales, la carene dentee 

 sous le ventre ; seulement cette carene est plus forte, et la dorsale et Tanale 

 sont plus courtes, plus hautes, et plus pointues. Si, ce que nous avons tout 

 lieu de le penser, sa joue est cuirassec et son vomer depourvu de dents,* il 

 devra etre reuni a notre Hoplostethe, et alors nous supprimerons ce nom 

 generique, et nous appellerons Fespece actuelle Trachichthi/s Mediter- 

 raneus.'''' — Cuv. et Val. Hist. iv. 470. 



These observations are most just; and it is. only the conclusion from 

 them which appears objectionable. The fish to wliich they refer might 

 have been called at once Trachichthys Mediterraneus : but now, the disco- 

 very of three individuals of the same species in these Atlantic seas requires 

 also that, for which the suppression of the needless new generic name 

 Hoplostcthus has afforded a proper opportunity, — namely, the abandonment 

 of the inappropriate proposed specific name of Mediterraneus. The species 

 never has been actually called Trachichlhys Mediterraneus; a proposal 

 cannot claim the paramount authority of a precedent ; and it may safely be 

 affirmed that MM. Cuvier and Valenciennes would never have declared 

 even their intention so to designate their fish, had they been aware of 

 its occurrence as an oceanic species. 



* The vomer proves to be toothed : but this is altogether imiuuterial to the point in (luostion. 



