142 U.S. NATIONAL MUSEUM BULLETIN 23 6 



Scott, 1898 (type species P. coronatus T. Scott, 1898), and Dacty- 

 lopodella G. O. Sars, 1905 (type species Dactylopus jiavus Claus, 1866). 



The following genera are of uncertain standing: Flavia Brady, 

 1899 (for F. crassicornis Brady, 1899), Dactylopina Brady, 1910 (for 

 D. villosa Brady, 1910), Mawsonella Brady, 1918 (for M. typica 

 Brady, 1918), and Tisemus Monard, 1928 (for T. pulchellus Monard, 

 1928). 



I have only provisionally accepted Nicholls' genus Neodactylopus, 

 which seems to be allied closely to, and probably even to be identical 

 with, Eudactylopus A. Scott, as defined by Lang (1948, p. 559). 



The genus Dactylopusia was substituted by Norman (1903 p. 368) 

 for Dactylopus Claus, 1863 (preoccupied by Dactylopus Gill, 1859). 

 Norman designated as the type of his genus the species Dactylopus 

 stroma (Baird, 1834), which thereby also becomes the type of 

 Dactylopus Claus, 1863, for which genus at that time no type was 

 indicated. 



Claus (1863, p. 126) mentioned Dactylopus stromii as the first of the 

 species listed by him as referable to Dactylopus. His identification, 

 however, is incorrect. Baird's original figure leaves no doubt that 

 his "Cyclops Stromii" is referable to the Laophontidae and not to the 

 Thalestridae (Baud, 1837, p. 330, pi. 8, figs. 23-25). As Sars (1905, 

 p. 129) pointed out, the material which Claus referred to Baud's 

 species actually belongs to a new species, described by him as Dactylo- 

 pusia vulgaris (loc. cit., p. 129, pi. 79, fig. 1). It is clear that Norman, 

 when designating Dactylopus stromii as the type of Dactylopusia, 

 meant the species identified by Claus as such, and Norman's type 

 designation consequently is based on a misidentified species. A 

 strict application of the International Rules of Zoological Nomen- 

 clature makes Cyclops stromii Baird the type of Dactylopusia, neces- 

 sitating the transfer of Norman's genus from the Thalestridae to the 

 Laophontidae. As this will cause no end of confusion, the Inter- 

 national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature will be asked to 

 correct under their plenary powers the consequences of Claus' and 

 Norman's misidentification and to indicate under these powers, as 

 the type of the genus Dactylopusia Norman, the species D. vulgaris 

 G. O. Sars, 1905. Pending the decision of the International Com- 

 mission, the name Dactylopusia will be used here in the currently 

 accepted sense. 



Lang (1944, 1948) entirely split up the old genus Dactylopusia and 

 even went so far as to drop that name altogether, replacing it, with- 

 out obvious reason, with the new name Dactyloj^odia — -"Doch habe 

 ich jetzt die Gattung Dactylopusia umgetauft und einige Arten 

 herausgebrochen, die ich in einer Gattung Paradactylopodia vere- 

 inige" (1944, p. 12). There seems to be no reason for a new name and 



