PROCEEDINGS OF UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM. 275 



United States), C (California), W (western Atlantic, West Indies, Bra- 

 zil), E (Europe), A (Western Africa), B (southern coast of Brazil and 

 southward), P (Pacific coast of Mexico and Central America), G (wes- 

 tern coast of South America) . 



Genus 1. — Mugil, (Artedi) LinnaBiis. 



1. Mugil liza, CnY. & Val. (W.). 



2. Mugil cephalus,!^. (E.) (cephalus), (A.) (cephalus), (U.W. ){albula), (C.F.){guntheri:= 



mexicanus), (G.) {rammelsbergt), (Asia?) {cephaloius). (Possibly 

 divisible into geographical subspecies.) 



3. Mugil platanus, Giintber. (B.) (Species not sufficiently known.) 



4. Mugil incilis, Hancock. (W. P.) (Identification of name indlia somewhat doubt- 



ful.) 



5. Mugil curema, Cuv. & Val. (U. W. B. P. G.). 



6. Mugil gaimardianus, (Desmarest) Poey (W. U ). 



7. Mugil braailiensis, Agassiz (W. U.). 



Genus 2. — Ch^nomugil, Gill. 



8. Choenomugil proboacideua, Giinther (P.)- 



Genus 3. — Querimana, Jordan & Gilbert. 



9. Querimanat curvidena, C. & V. (A. W.). (Species unknown to us; of uncertain 



genus.) 



10. Querimana ciliildbia^C & V. (G.). 



11. Querimana harengua, Giinther (P. G.). (Possibly young of Q. dliilaiia ?). 



12. Querimana gyrane, Jordan & Gilbert (U.). 



SYNOPSIS OF THE GENERA OP THE SUPERPAMIL Y TEUTHIDOIDBA 

 (FAMILIES TEUTHIDID^ AND SIGANID^). 



By THEODORE Qllili. 



Having recently had occasion to inquire into the relations and charac- 

 teristics of the constituents, and into the applicability of the names em- 

 ployed for the genera of the family "Teuthyes" of Cuvier, I was obliged 

 to dissent from the taxonomic views as well as nomenclature most in 

 vogue, and have reached the conclusions embodied in the following 

 synopsis. The changes of nomenclature have invariably been made in 

 obedience to the rules of the British and American associations for the 

 advancement of science. Those who are lawless, or follow rules only 

 when they suit their purpose or convenience, will doubtless disapprove 

 of the changes. The necessity for the changes has been appreciated by 

 Messrs. Jordan, Meek, and Bean, and the first two had independently 

 reached the same conclusion with reference to the Teuthis hepatus. 



