216 RECORDS OF THE AUSTRALIAN MUSEUM. 



Zool. Record, iv., p. 161); but he still thinks that the fish described 

 by him is a new species (Wiegm. Arch. 1868 in Troschel's Bericht). 

 [It is Hoplognathus fasciatus of Krriyer, not of Schlegel ; the 

 name of the Japanese species may be changed to Hoplognathus 

 krusenster7iii.Y We do not possess the Vienna publication, so 

 that further research in this direction is impossible. There is no 

 reference to where Kroyer's paper was published, but such is 

 ultimately traced by Carus and Engelmann's Bibliotheca Zoologica 

 (1861, p. 1028); the reference being: — "Oplegnathus fasciatus. in: 

 Kroyer, naturhist. Tidsskr. N. R. Bd. i., 1845, p. 213 -223," a 

 work to which again I cannot refer. In passing it may be noted 

 that the Bibliotheca does not record Castelnau's Ichthyorhamphus. 



I have no direct evidence as to where Kroyer's type was 

 obtained, but Giinther writes of the family Hoplognathidce* : — 

 " One genus only is known, Hojylognathus, with four species from 

 Australian, Japanese, and Peruvian coasts": as we know the 

 species representing the two former habitats, I presume Kroyer's 

 example was from Peru, and it is possible that H. ivoodwardi is 

 identical with H. fasciatus from Peru, many types being common 

 to Australia and South America. It is to be noticed that the 

 Cape of Good Hope, supposed to be represented by Ichthyorham- 

 phus, is not included in the distribution of the family. 



Although the Fauna Japonica, Pisces, bears on the title page 

 the date 1850, the work was issued in parts, commencing 1844, 

 in which year the decade containing Hoplegnathus appeared. It 

 thus antedated Kroyer's paper, published in 1845, which was 

 however not recorded by Giinther in his Catalogue, and this con- 

 stitutes the omission previously referred to. The changing of the 

 name of the Japanese species was therefore not justified, as 

 acknowledged later by using H. fasciatus, according to priority. f 

 Steindachner has redescribed the species, but unfortunately I am 

 unable to consult his paper. | 



In changing the spelling of Hoplognathus to Hoplognathus, 

 Giinther had apparently assumed that the derivation of the prefix 

 was oVAoi' = ARMA, whereas Richardson expressly states that his 

 derivation was 07rAr) = UNGULA.§ 



Further, the name Hoplognathus is inadmissible for this genus, 

 having been used in 1819 by MacLeay, and again by Chadoir in 

 1835, for different genera of Coleoptera. It was subsequently 

 (1844) used by Burmeister, also in Coleoptera. 



* Giinther— Study of Fishes, 1880, p. 410. 



t Giinther — Challenger Reports, Zool., i.. Shore Fishes, 1880, p. 64. 

 X steindachner— Sitz. K. Akad. Wiss. Wien., cii., 1893, p. 222. 

 § Richardson — Trans. Zool. Soc, 1849, iii., p. 144. 



