76 KECORDS OF THE AUSTRALIAN MUSEUM. 



Steindachner^* identified a specimen from St. Vincent's gulf 

 with PatcEcus maciilatus, but evidently misunderstood the sen- 

 tence : — " The dorsal fin is perfectly continuous, extending from 

 the snout to the middle of the caudal fin." 



In his example, as figured, the dorsal is free from the caudal 

 fin and is attached to the middle of the slender i^eduncle. To 

 emphasise this peculiarity he proposed the sub-genus Neopatctcus. 



This author placed P. n-aterhoitsii, Castelnau'*', as a synonym of 

 P. inacidatits, but judging by the radial formula and the con- 

 dition of the caudal rays, it is equally distinct fi^om that species 

 but identical with Steindachner's example. As the generic name 

 Neopatcecns was nominally founded on P. v)aciilatu>i, though 

 actually on a specimen of another species, it may, without violation 

 of zoological nomenclature, accompany the latter, the name of 

 which would therefore be Xeopatcecus iraterhousii, Castelnau. 



In 1890 Mr. R. M. Johnston published a complete list of 

 Tasmanian Fishes, and included Patcecus armatus, Giinther ; I 

 have not, so far, found any other reference to this species, and am 

 inclined to regard it as a manuscript name, or, seeing that we 

 have an example of P. macitlatns from Tasmania as a lapsxs calami 

 for that name. Some further confusion in respect to the species 

 of this genus is apparent. Richardson descx'ibed P. fronto, the 

 type, as exhibiting the dorsal formula 24/16. Giinther, by error, 

 prints thirty instead of forty, and appears to have been himself 

 misled thereby, for he describes as a new species P. subocellatus 

 from South Austi'alia. A careful comparison fails to reveal any 

 essential differences between the two, such being reducible to a 

 variation of one dorsal and one anal ray. 



Macleay" perceived that an error had been made, but failed to 

 elucidate the difficulty. Of P. macniatus he writes : — " Dr. 

 Giinther's description of this fish cannot be accurate, or its 

 resemblance to fronto must be very slight. It will probably be 

 found that for D. 31 we should read D. 41." 



An obvious misprint in Richardson's description "A. 11/15." 

 is corrected by Macleay to " A. 11/5." 



The following represents my conception of the synomomy as 

 far as I am in a position to read it. Not having access to the 

 Anzeiger Akad. Wiss. Wien., I am unaware if Xeopatre.ciis was 

 first characterised there or in the Sitzungsberichte. 



15 Steindachner.— Sitzb. K. Akad. Wiss. Wien, Ixxxviii., ISSt, p. 1087. 



pi. vii., fitj. 3. 

 1" Cast.lenau.— Proc. Zool. Soc. Vict.. J.. 1872, p. 244. 

 ^7 Macleay,— Proc. Linn. Soc. N. S. Wales, vi., 1881, p. 31. 



