570 PROCEEDINGS OF UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM. 



= Temnodou Cuvier, Regne Animal, t. 2, p. 346, 1817. 



= Sypteru8 £ic7twaW, Fauna Caspio-Caucasica, p. — ? (fide Bonaparte), ? 1841. 



= Chromis Gronow, Systema Iclithyologicum (1780), publ. by J. E. Gray, p. — , 1854. 



= Pomatomus CHll, Proc. Acad, Nat. Sc. PMla., [v. 14,] p. 443, 1862. 



= Cheilodipterus Bleeker, Nat. Verhandel. Holl. Maatschapij Wetenschappen (3), v. 



2, no. 1, p. 74, 1874. 

 = Sparactodon de Eochebrune, Bull. Soc. Philomathique Paris (7), t. 4? pp. 159-169 



(yg.), 1880 (identified with "Temnodon" hj Sieindachner, Deuksclir. k. Akad. 



Wiss., Matli.-Nat. CI., v. 14, p. 51, 1882. 



DOES THE PANTHER (FELIS CONCOIOR) GO INTO THE WATER TO KILL FISH 1 

 BY I.IVIWGSTOI\ STOWE. 



[Letter to Prof. S. F. Baird.] 



My mind has been quite exercised lately on the question whether 

 panthers go into the water to kill fish. They are so numerous and bold 

 here this year, that they come to our very doors and kill pigs and fowls 

 under our windows. We estimate that they have killed a hundred dol- 

 lars' worth of hogs here this season, besides calves, colts, and full grown 

 cattle and horses. As far as boldness is concerned, they are fully equal 

 to jumping into our trout ponds and killing our trout. And if you think 

 they are likely to do this, we will take special precautions against it. 

 They easily jump over any obstacle not more than 15 feet high, so that 

 our fences are no protection from them. 



They frequently swim the river, which made me think that perhaps 

 they might get into the trout ponds sometimes for a meal of fish. 



United States Fish Co3oiission, 



Baird, Shasta County, California, September 21, 1S82. 



OIV CERTAIIV l\X:Or,E:CTE:i> OEIVERIC XAMES of I.A CEPl^DE. 

 BY DAVID S. JORDAIV AND CHARLES H. GILBERT. 



In the Histoire Naturelle des Poissons (1799-1803) of La Cepede a con- 

 siderable number of generic names are proposed, some of them founded 

 on errors of various sorts, others properly defined. About one-fourth of 

 these were adopted by Cuvier and Valenciennes, and have come into 

 general use. A large number are simple synonyms. The remainder, 

 for diftereut reasons, were set aside by Cuvier and Valenciennes, and 

 new names proposed in their places. As the laws of priority are con- 

 stantly becoming more and more urgent, we find ourselves obliged to 

 go behind Cuvier, and to adopt these earlier names. 



The present paper contains a discussion of some of these names, the 

 adoption of which would affect the nomenclature of American fishes. 



