1888.] PROCEEDINGS OF UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM. 



Gd 



NOTE ON THE GENUS GOBIOMORUS. 



BY THEODORE GILL. 



In 1800 Oompte de Lacepede, in bis Histoire Katurelle des Poissons 



(vol. 2, p. 5S3), proposed a -onus under the name Gobiomorus for four 

 species of fisbes. The genus was simply defined as having the ventral 

 fins not united, two dorsal fins, the head small, the eves approximate,! 

 and the opercula attached for the great part of their margin The 

 species referred to it belong to the four genev^JSTomeus, Valenciennea, 

 Philypnus, and Periophthalmus. These genera were distinguished in the 

 following order: 



In 1801, Periophthalmus, by Bloch & Schneider. 

 In 1817, Nomeus, by Cuvier. 

 In 1837, Philypnus, by Valenciennes. 

 In 1S5G, Valenciennea, by Bleeker. 



In 1883 Professor Jordan, in the Proceedings of the U. S. National Mu- 

 seum (vol. 5, p. ,u 1), has proposed to restrict the name Gobiomorus to 

 Philypnus He remarks of the name : « It has not as yet been restricted 

 by any author so far as we know. It seems to us best to consider as 

 the type of Gobiomorus, G. dormitator Lacepede, and therefore to use 

 the name Gobiomorus instead of Philypnus. A serious practical objec- 

 tion to the consideration of taiboa (strigatus) as the type of Gobiomorus 

 lies in the uncertainty whether this species is really congeneric with 

 Meotrisgyrmus (which species must, we think, as « Eleotris pisonis" be 

 Considered the type of EUotris). In Bleeker's systeme, strigatus is made 

 the type of a distinct genus ( Valenciennea Bleeker) and placed at a dis- 

 tance from Eleotris, but no diagnostic features of importance have been 

 made known by which it may be distinguished." 



The reasons assigued do not appear to be sufficient for a restriction 

 of the name Gobiomorus to Philypnus. As has been already shown 

 Gobwmorus was a very heterogeneous genus, and not by itself deserv- 

 ing ot any consideration. Of course, however, the principles of no- 

 menclature compel us to do something with it. Inasmuch as the genera 

 lenop,rthalmus, Nomeus, and Philypnus had already been properly con- 

 stituted, there is no reason why those names should not be retained The 

 only species for which Gobiomorus could therefore be used as a o- en eric 

 designation is the taiboa. This is considered by Professor Jordan to be 

 perhaps, if not probably, a species of Eleotris, the genus Valenciennea 

 not being regarded as well distinguished. To the present writer 

 However, the genus Valenciennea seems to be entirely deserving of 



