522 PROCEEDINGS OP THE NATIONAL MUSEUM vol. 83 



rostris, N.), Will., pi. J. 25, fig. 3. Et une autre a museau plus long 

 (Hipp, guttulatus, N.), Will. J. 25, f. 5, qui n'ont toutes deux que quel- 

 ques filaments sur le museau et sur le corps. II y en a aussi de voisines 

 dans les deux Indes.^" In a footnote, as indicated, he adds: "^Sijng. 

 longirostris, N., Will., J. 25, f. 4, et d'autres especes que nous ferons 

 connaitre dans notre grande Ichtyologie." 



Comparing this with Cuvier's account in his first edition of ''Le 

 Regne Animal" (see p. 519), we note that both accounts are essentially 

 the same. He even employs the same phraseology in describing the 

 two French species that he recognized. He now supplies the two 

 French species with names and also names a third species from "les 

 deux Indes." However, while his description is essentially the same 

 in both editions, he makes some important changes in his citations. 

 For the short-snouted French species he substitutes the reference to 

 Willughby's figure 3 for that to Bloch; for the long-snouted French 

 species he now cites Willughby's figure 5 instead of figure 4, although 

 Willughby assigns figure 5 to a West Indian species; and he intro- 

 duces a third species, longirostris, from "les deux Indes", for which he 

 cites figure 4, although previously, in 1817, he assigned figure 4 to a 

 species from "nos mers." A study of the species and a comparison 

 with the figures of Willughby and Bloch make Cuvier's intention 

 apparent. The snout in Willughby's figure 3 is approximately the 

 same as in either one of the two short-snouted French species; figure 

 5 instead of figure 4 has the snout more nearly like the long-snouted 

 French species, while seahorses with snouts more or less the same 

 length as in figure 4 are present in the Indo-Pacific region. Cuvier 

 apparently now examined specimens of this notably long-snouted 

 species and changed his citations to accord more nearly with his newly 

 acquired material. His intention then was to cite Willughby's figures 

 as examples of what the material he examined looked like, rather than 

 to accept Willughby's account in full. Evidently, for this same rea- 

 son, his first reference to Bloch's figure under the short-snouted sea- 

 horse is omitted in the second edition, because that figure shows a 

 rather long-snouted species, and this was, consequently, also a neces- 

 sary correction. Such an explanation becomes apparent after one 

 becomes familiar with the appearance of the species. 



Comparing Cuvier's account with that of Schinz makes it evident 

 that the brevirostris of both is the same species and is to be replaced 

 by hippocampus, as already shown. Like other early authors, 

 Cuvier, being opposed to tautonymy, changed the name of a species 

 when it corresponded with the generic name, and evidently adopted 

 the name first proposed by Schinz for that species. However, for 

 his other French species, the one having a "museau plus long" and 

 inhabiting "nos mers", Cuvier does not adopt Schinz's name longi- 

 rostris, probably regarding it as inappropriate, since he apparently 



