REVIEW OF HIPPOCAMPUS — GINSBURG 519 



"II s'en trouve dans nos mers une espece a museau plus court, 

 pointillee de blanc. {Syng. hippocampus L.) Bl. 109, fig. 3. Et une 

 autre a museau plus long, Will. I. 25, f. 4, qui n'ont toutes deux que 

 quelques filaments sur le museau et sur le corps." 



Cuvier thus differentiates two species in "nos mers", correctly 

 giving one striking character that distinguishes them. For one he 

 cites the name Syngnathus hippocampus, but leaves the other un- 

 named. (This was later named by Schinz.) 



We must digress here from the regular clu'onological arrangement 

 of this review and turn briefly to Willughby." This author is pre- 

 Linnaean and largely nonbinomial, and his work need not be consid- 

 ered by itself. In the preceding quotation, however, Cuvier cites one 

 of Willughby's figures, and this account by Cuvier later formed the 

 basis of Schinz's longirostris. Also, Cuvier still later established three 

 species citing Willughby's three figures, one for each of his species. 

 The accounts of these two post-Linnaean authors are very inade- 

 quate, and in order to dispose of their names properly a consideration 

 of Willughby's account becomes important. 



The section in Willughby's book dealing with the seahorses is 

 headed: "Hippocampus Rondeletii & aliorum. . ." No other 

 species is mentioned by name in the letter-press account, which is 

 largely generic and insufficient to distinguish separate species. His 

 work also includes a plate containing, among others, three crude 

 figures of supposedly distinct species of seahorses. Figure 3 is 

 labeled "H Rond.", while figures 4 and 5 are named polynomially, 

 but the alleged specific characters implied in these polynomial desig- 

 nations are insufficient to distinguish the species. Figure 3 shows 

 a short snout and is probably a poor representation of the common 

 short-snouted Mediterranean species. Figure 5 shows a medium 

 long snout, while figure 4 shows a notably long snout, but neither 

 figure is definitely recognizable. As to locaUties, for figure 5 "India 

 Ocidentalis [sic]" is given on the plate after the polynomial desig- 

 nation. No locahties are given on the plate for the other two figures. 

 In his letter-press account the only localities he mentions are Mediter- 

 ranean, and his intention apparently was for figures 3 and 4 to repre- 

 sent Mediterranean species, but this is not altogether certain. Since 

 a knowledge of the locality to be assigned to figure 4 is of importance 

 in disposing of the names later based on that figure, it may be noted 

 that Cuvier first cited (see above) that figure under a species from "nos 

 mers", which he characterized but did not name. Whatever Wil- 

 lughby's intention was, this citation by Cuvier evidently restricted 

 Willughby's figure 4 to a French species, 



" Historia piscium . . ., pp. 157-158, tab. I 25, figs. 3-5, 1686. 



