168 FAMILIES OF SYNENTOGNA THO US FISHES— GILL. 



This Strange medley (rendered more heterogeneous still by some suc- 

 ceeding authors) was allowed to remain for a number of years. At 

 length, in or before 1803, ISphyraiia, Lepisosteus, Albula and Hiinodus 

 were eliminated, but not until 1810 was the residuum disintegrated. 



II. 



lu 1810 Katinesque, in his ''Caratteri," divided the genus Esox ?is 

 left by Lacepede in the following terms: 



II geuere Esox di Linneo l' stato diviso da Laco}>ede in quattro geueri, Esox, 

 Sphjirwna, Siinodns e Leptsosfeiis; io propoiigo di dividere uouvamente in due il suo 

 geuere Esox; lasciero questo uome alle specie marine cbe hanuo il corpo tetragouo 

 con due liuee lateral! da ogui lato couio nil geuere Exocwtus, le mascelle luughe e 

 strette, le ale dorsale luughe giungeudo dalF auo lino alia coda e falcifoi'tni, &c.; 

 mentre formero un nuovo geuere col noiue di Lucius della specie Huviatile clie hauno 

 il corpo ciliudrico, una sola linea laterale, le mascelle larghe, e le ale dorsali cd auali 

 corte e rotondato. 



This divisiou was quite good, and the distinction of the two genera 

 justified by the contrasted characters as well as the names. Eafinesque 

 has still further the merit of recognizing a similarity between Usox as 

 limited by him {Belone) and Exoecetus. But the proposition thus regu- 

 larly formulated was destined to remain long in abeyance and the 

 names given to be sux^erseded by a later set. 



III. 



In 1817 Cuvier, in the " Regne Animal," divided Esox on the same 

 lines as Eafinesque had done, but restricted Esox ' to the pikes [Lucius^ 

 Eafinesque) and gave the name Belone'^ to the garfishes {Esox, Eafin- 

 esque). This view has been almost universally accejited, the only 

 dissenters being Bonaparte in 1850, and very recently Jordan, with 

 a few other American naturalists."' The reversion of those natural- 

 ists to the Eafines(iuian names is perfectly justified. Even the per- 

 version of ancient names is less under such usage than under the 

 Cuvieran nomenclature. As this statement may surprise some, a justi- 

 fication of it is timely, especially as it may tend to quiet those whose 

 minds would be otherwise too much disturbed. 



IV. 



Esox is a name so long connected with the pike in scientific nomen- 

 clature, that it is probable that even many ichthyologists suppose it to 

 be the ancient name of that fish. There is, however, no reason to sup- 

 pose that it was its proper name; on the contrary, there is every reason 

 to believe it had nothing to do with the pike. The only occurrence of 

 the word Esox (or Isox) or Esos in ancient classical literature, so far as 



' Regne Animal, II, p. 183. 

 2Regue Animal, II, p. 185. 

 ^Bleeker has revived the name Mastacembdus of Kleiu for the garfishes. 



