698 THE GENUS CHONERHINUS — GILL. 



The diagnosis will be thus seen to be sufficient if not complete and 

 as good as those subsequently given by Bibrou and Glinther. Dr. 

 Giinther could not have noted that " Chonerhinus " was '' not before 

 characterized" if he had known Bleeker's memoir, which, it is to be 

 borne in mind, is not referred to by him. 



In 1855 M, Auguste Dumeril published extracts from unpublished 

 MSS. of the late M. Bibron relative to the gymnodont plectognaths, and 

 among them a diagnosis of a genus called Xenoptere,* viz : 



10" G. Xenoptere Bib. (c^w<c, etrange, inusite; Tzrspo^, nageoires). 

 <'Narines en forme de cupule pliss^e interieurement.— Des epiues sur les 

 c6t6s de la tete et le ventre seulement. Epiptere ethypoptere beaucoup 

 plus longues que hautes; uroptere arrondie." 



Espece unique : X. Bellangerii Bib. 



In 1878 Gill t adopted the name Xenopterus and made the genus the 

 type of a subfamily Xenopterince. 



In 1880 Dr. Glinther | degraded the genus to a subdivision of Tet- 

 rodon, under which it would only appear as a section. 



In 1884 Gill§ recognized the priority of Chonerhinus and raised the 

 including group to family rank under the name Ghonerhinidw. 



In 1886 Jordan and Edwards, || with reference to the considerable 

 number of dorsal and anal rays in Lagoeephalus, expressed the opinion 

 that " this increase in the number of fin rays marks a slightstep in the 

 direction of the genus Xenopterus {Chonerhinus)." They also accepted 

 the "family of Tetraodo7itid(eas, including all the Plectognathous fishes 

 in which the teeth in each jaw are coalesced into a bony plate, which 

 in each jaw is divided by a median suture," but restricted the name 

 Tetraodontime to ihe Tetraodontidw as limited by me in 1884. They ex- 

 cluded Xenopterus from both their subfamilies by the terms of their 

 diagnoses and consequently by implication admitted the subfamily 

 Xenopterince. 



III. 



It will thus be seen that in 1855 (1) the name Xenoptere was alone 

 given and (2) no described type was mentioned. For both reasons, 

 therefore, some naturalists at least (and for the first, President Jordan 

 certainly), if the facts were known, would reject the name.^ On the 

 other hand, (1) a good Latin name was given by Bleeker, (2) described 

 species were specified, (3) a good generic diagnosis was supplied, and 

 (4) the given name was published before any other. Unquestionably, 



* Note 8ur un travail inMit de Bibron relatif aux Poissous Plectognathes Gymno- 

 donts. . . . <Rev. et Mag. Zool., (2,) v. 7, pp. 274-282 (281), 1855. 

 t Gill, Johnson's Univ. Cycl , v. 4, p. 792. 

 } Glinther, Int. Study Fishes, p. 688. 

 §Gill, Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., v. 7, p. 423. 

 II Jordan and Edwards, U. S. Nat. Mus., v. 9, pp. 230-236. 

 USee Jordan and Edwards, Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., V 9, p. 233. 



