PROCEEDINGS OF UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM. 219 



by Dr. Albert Giinther from specimens in the British Museum, and by 

 Cuvier, Valenciennes, and others from examples in the Museum at Paris. 

 Notes on some of these, the proper identification of which may affect 

 our nomenclature, are here presented. 



1. Micropterus dolomieu Lacepede. 



Lae6pede, Histoire Naturelle ties Poissons iv, 324. 



The original type of this species is a large specimen, still in good con- 

 dition. Its peculiarity, which led to its separation from "irtftrifs" by 

 Lacepede, is that the last rays of the dorsal are detached from the others, 

 and somewhat distorted, the result of some accident to the fish while 

 young. The injury to the specimen is therefore not a museum mutila- 

 tion, as I had heretofore understood, but a healed wound. This speci- 

 men belongs to the southern variety of the small-mouthed Black Bass, 

 recognized by me (Bull. U. S. Nat. Mus., xii, 1878, p. 30) as Micropterus 

 salmoides var. salmoides. Prof. Yaillant recognizes this form provision- 

 ally (MSS. Mission Scientifique au Mexique) as a distinct species {Mi- 

 cropterus dolomieu Lac.) from the northern form, but the differences seem 

 to me to have no more than varietal value. 



As shown below, there is little doubt that the specific name dolomieu, 

 is the first ever distinctly api^lied to our small-mouthed Black Bass, as 

 the name Micropterus is its earliest generic appellation. Unless we adopt 

 the earlier salmoides, its name should, therefore, be Micropterus dolomieu. 



On the other hand it is true that the name Micropterus dolomieu was 

 applied to a deformed specimen, which was considered as a distinct 

 genus and species solely on account of its deformity. 



It is an established rule of nomenclature (Dall, Eept. Comm. Zool. 

 Nomenc, 48,) that " a name shoidd be rejected * * * when it ex- 

 presses an attribute or character positively false in the majority or the 

 whole of the group in question, as in cases (among others) when a name 

 has been founded on a monstrous, abnormal, immature, artificial, or 

 mutilated specimen." 



The name Micropterus was founded on a monstrous specimen; in the 

 sense intended by its author it expresses a false character, although the 

 species really have smaller fins than are found in related genera. In 

 the opinion of some writers it should be set aside and the next name in 

 order {CalUurus Eaf.) should be adopted in its stead. The species might 

 then stand as CalUurus dolomieu. The specific name " dolomieu " is also 

 open to objection, as it is a French noun having neither a Latin nor a 

 genitive form, but being an unmodified name of a person. Tbis hardly 

 seems to me a reason for rejecting the name, although, if retained, it 

 should receive a genitive form, as dolomii, or dolomiei. 



The question of the adoption of the name Micropterus is still an open 

 one. The weight of authority is, however, at j)resent in fiivor of its 

 retention, and the writer sees no suflQcient reason for setting it aside. 



