NOTES ON FISHES FROM WESTERN AUSTRALIA — WAITE. 215 



We next turn up Richardson's paper on the Ichthyology of the 

 seas of China and Japan,* and find that he recognised the generic 

 identity of Scarodon with his own Hoplegnathus, and under H. 

 punctatus mentions having seen, very cursorily, in the Museum 

 at Fort Pitt, a spotted Hoplegnathus from Norfolk Island. As 

 the only island of that name, according to the atlas and the 

 gazetteer, is the dependency of New South Wales, it would seem 

 as though this species should be credited to our fauna, but 

 Richardson describes its habitat merely as the seas of Japan and 

 China. In the work quoted, he, with doubtful judgment, coins a 

 third name — H. maculosus, his type being a drawing only, at the 

 same time he doubts its specific distinction from H. punctatus. 



In 1851, Bleeker raised the genus to family rank under the 

 name Hoplegnathoidei,j but I have not access to his paper ; he 

 again mentions it in his Archipelago Indico. J Two years later, 

 Richardson, who had apparently not seen Bleeker's work, placed 

 his Hoplegnathus as a genus^ under Chcetodontid(e.^ The three 

 valid species mentioned, are recorded by Giinther || in 1861, but 

 it becomes evident tliat one paper on the subject had at that time 

 been overlooked, of which more later. 



On referring to the Zoological Record for 1865, we readH: — 

 " Hoplognathus. INI. Guichenot states that Ichtliyorhainphus 

 (Casteln.) from the Cape of Good Hope is identical with this 

 genus. Mem. Soc. Sc. Nat. Cherbourg, xi., p. 5. The same 

 author refers it to the Scaroid fishes ; but its pharangeal bones 

 are entirely separate, ratiier feeble, and armed with villiform 

 teeth." The work in which Guichenot published the observation 

 is not accessible to me, and I am unable to find where Castelnau's 

 genus was described. It is omitted from the " Nomenclator 

 Zoologicus " of Scudder, and on searching the Royal Society's 

 Catalogue such references as I can consult do not contain notice 

 of the genus Ichthyor-haniphus, so that I am unable to learn even 

 the specific name applied by Castelnau. 



The following reference is supplied by the Zoological Record for 

 1867 : — **" Hoplognathus fasciatus (Kroy.) is described as Scaro- 

 stoma insigne (g. et sp. n.) by Prof. Kner, Sitzgsber. Ak. Wiss. 

 Wien, 1867, Ivi., p. 715, fig. 3," and the same subject is recorded 

 in the Zoological Record for 1868, asfollowsff: — "Prof. Kner also 

 has recognised the identity of his Scarostoma with this genus (See 



* Richardson — Rep, Brit. Assoc, 1845, p. 247. 



t Bleeker — Ver. Akad. Wetensch. Amsterdam, i., 1854, Japan, p. 6. 



X Bleeker — Spec. Pise. Arch. Indico, 1859, p. 250. 



§ Richardson— Encyc. Brit. (Ed. ix.), Ichth. xii., p. 303. 



II Giinther— Brit. Mus. Cat. Fish.,iii., 1861, pp. 357-8. 



IT Giinther— Zool. Record. 1865, Pisces, p. 184. 



** Giinther— Zool. Record, 1867, Pisces, p. 161. 



tt Giinther— Zool. Record, 1868, Pisces, p. 146. 



