^"isgL"^'] PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM. 399 



In 1869, Dr. Giinther, having received a specimen of Labroid iden- 

 tified with Labrichthys by Col. Playfair, in a note (" Addendum ") to a 

 short article on fishes collected by him at Zanzibar, announced the fol- 

 lowing conclusions : 



Colonel Playfair has sent to the British Museum an example of a small Lahroid fish, 

 which he regarded as a new species of Labrichthys, requesting me to examine it also. 

 It proves to be identical with Labrichthys cyanotccnia of Bleeker, but it would have 

 been difficult to recognize it from Bleeker's description, as he has omitted to say that 

 the ground-color of examples preserved in spirits changes into black. Beside an ex- 

 ample sent by Dr. Bleeker as L. cyanotwrna, the British Museum possesses an example 

 of ThysanochiJus ornatns of Kner. This I find is identical with the Zanzibar fish, 

 although it appears really to be the type of a distinct genus closely allied to Labroides, 

 for which the name proposed by Kner ought to be retained. The synonymy is : — 



ThysanochiJus cyanotwnia. 

 Labrichthys cyanotcvnia Blkr. 

 Thysanochilns* ornatus Kner. 

 Samoa Islands, Flores, Zanzibar. 

 Specimens in the British Museum : 



a. 6^ inches long. Samoa Islands. Type of Th. oruatus. 

 h. 3|^ inches long. Flores. (L. cyanotccnia.) 

 c. 3J inches long. Zanzibar. 



It is thus seen that the generic distinctness of Labrichthys cyanotcc- 

 nia from the other species associated with it was here conceded by Dr. 

 Giinther, and the questions at issue are now reduced to one of nomen- 

 clature only ! The subsequent omission of Thysanochilus in the " In- 

 troduction" and "Handbuch" was doubtless unintentional, and simply 

 due to forgetfulness or want of research. Dr. Giinther proposed to su- 

 persede the name Labrichthys of Bleeker by Thysanochilus of Kner, and 

 to retain the name Labrichthys of Giinther for the bulk of the species 

 previously erroneously confounded witk Labrichthys of Bleeker. A 

 more wanton disregard of the principles of nomenclature could scarcely 

 be imagined. Labrichthys was instituted for the L. cyanotcenia and for 

 that alone,t and the terms of the diagnosis (Caput, regione oculo-max- 

 illari excepta, totum squamosum. . . . Prfeoperculum edentulum 

 ubique squamosum. . . . Pinnne verticales squamosa^. Membrana 

 branchiostega 5) effectually excluded the species subsequently added 

 to the genus; it was instituted in 1854, and Thysanocheilus was not in- 

 troduced till 1872. The only reason, then, (except thoughtlessness), that 

 could have influenced Dr. Giinther in his course was that he had com- 

 mitted himself by applying the former name to a large assemblage of 

 other species. It is very improbable, however, with the facts now made 

 known, that any others will hereafter be so influenced by the ovine pro- 

 pensity to follow a leader as to longer follow him in such a course. 



* Kner wrote Thysanocheilus. 



t It was suggested that Labrus poecilopleura CV. might belong to the genus. 



