40 PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM vol. 119 



name on the title page as author of the supplementary sections in the 

 English (1834) edition of Cuvier's "The Animal Kmgdom." Ap- 

 parently overlooked, however, is the fact that there are actually two 

 consecutive title pages to each volume, and, on the second page of 

 volume 10, under the heading "The Class Pisces," the names of 

 Edward Griffith and Charles Hamilton Smith appear, thus indicating 

 their responsibility for the new sections on the orders of fishes. The 

 past confusion has resulted because only Griffith's name appears on 

 the first title page (entitled "The Animal Kingdom") as author of 

 the additions, although the words "and others" are written in small 

 type underneath. It is clear from the above that Cuvier had no 

 part in the preparation of these supplements, thereby eliminating 

 him as a codescriber of the species named therein; and therefore, 

 Griffith and Smith should be regarded as describers of Sphyrna lewini 

 and other new forms appearing in this volume. 



For a long time Sjphyrna lewini was confused with the superficially 

 similar S. zygaena. Garman seems to have been the first to recognize 

 the distinctness of the two species, since, in his monograph of the 

 sharks (1913, pp. 158-159), he described a new hammerhead, Cestracion 

 oceanica, which he noted was "closely allied to C. zygaena, [and] 

 similar in most respects." In the comparison of this species with 

 zygaena, reference was made to the long inner narial groove of the 

 latter (extending more than halfway from the nares to the middle 

 of the snout). The length of the inner narial groove in oceanica, 

 together with other characters mentioned in the original description, 

 would lead one to suspect that this species is identical with Sphyrna 

 lewini, a suspicion that is confirmed by examination of the four 

 syntypes (MCZ 460 [3 spec.]; USNM 153587 [1 spec.]). Although 

 Garman distinguished the young of the above species, there is no 

 evidence that he recognized the adults, a situation that is difficult 

 to understand in view of the fact that the difference in length of the 

 inner narial groove, which he recognized in the yoimg, remains 

 constant at all sizes. 



Springer (1941, pp. 46-52) v/as the first to demonstrate conclusively 

 that S. zygaena and *S'. lewini are specifically distinct. At the time, 

 however, he was unaware that the Atlantic and Pacific populations of 

 lewini are morphologically indistinguishable, and he consequently 

 described the former population as a new species, S. diplana. 



Tortonese (1950a, pp. 21-28), although conthuiing to recognize both 

 S. diplana and S. lewini, strongly questioned their taxonomic separa- 

 tion. He did not synonymize the two species, however, due to a lack 

 of material from critical areas. In addition, Tortonese doubted the 

 validity of Sphyrna oceanica (1950a, p. 28), which, as he correctly 

 suspected, is identical with lewini. 



