REVIEW OF HIPPOCAMPUS — GINSBURG 513 



In a way they offer a challenge to the correctness of the author's con- 

 clusions. In view of the variability shown by the species and sub- 

 species of seahorses, their near approach to one another, and their 

 frequent overlapping, it is no wonder that there arc some uncertain 

 specimens. What is more surprising is that they proved to be com- 

 paratively few. Full-grown or nearly full-grown seahorses usually 

 have a typical structure, color, or appearance, wliich in combination 

 with the correlation of the counts and measurements of the specific 

 characters makes it possible, with a fair degree of assurance, to refer 

 the bulk of them to their proper species even without a previous 

 knowledge of the locality of capture. The identification of the rest 

 of the specimens, those that are not entirely typical, is aided hj a 

 knowledge of the locality of capture, after the knowTi geographical 

 distribution of the species and subspecies is taken into account. In 

 the present study there were only three specimens of which the iden- 

 tification was doubtful. Each one of these is discussed separately 

 after the account of the species or subspecies to which it is referred 

 (pp. 542, 546, and 572). 



NOMENCLATURE 



There is an utter state of chaos in the literature in regard to the 

 use of names for some very common species of seahorses in various 

 parts of the world. This confusion, aside from the difficulty of dis- 

 tinguishing the species, may be traced in a large measure to Cuvier's 

 introduction of three new names for seahorses without giving ade- 

 quate accounts, having based those names largely on some crude 

 figures previously published by Willughby; and, more particularly, 

 to Cuvier's as well as later authors' neglect of previous binomial 

 writers. Another fruitful source of confusion is that the first bino- 

 mial name used by Linnaeus for seahorses was evidently applied to 

 a composite of more than one species. In order to fix firm.Iy the 

 nomenclature of the species with which this report is concerned, a 

 review of the pertinent literature is given. Since the nomenclatorial 

 status of more than one species sometunes depends on a considera- 

 tion of the same publications, the discussion is given here together 

 for the several species, and the conclusions arrived at as a result of 

 the review are pointed out again under each species concerned. 

 Only v/orks having a direct bearing on the nomenclature are discussed 

 in chronological order. 



Linnaeus ^^ described a species of seahorse, naming it Syngnaihus 

 hippocampus. The work in which it was described is the starting 

 point of zoological nomenclature, according to the International 

 Code, and his name must be used for some species, if identifiable 



»«Systema naturae, ed. 10, p. 338, 1758. 

 73864—37 2 



