SCIENTIFIC lIISTOIiY OF THE l!i>ACK EASS. 47 



If (4) the iiiime sahiioides, left hopelessly uncertain by its author^ 

 should have been definitely used for some species to which it might 

 not improbably have referred before the use of the name pallidiis for 

 the same species, it sliould be retained, dating its acceptance from 

 its second use, and the name jMi/lidus should be considered as a 

 synonym of sahnoides. 



If (5) the name sahnoides sliould have been adopted by the second 

 author supposed in (4) for some species not a Mkropterus, or for 

 some species which could not reasonably be identical with the 

 original sahnoides, the identification sbould be taken as an erroneous 

 one, and should not be considered in our nomenclature. 



The actual state of tlie name salmoides is that supposed under (3) 

 above. I do not consider the name sahnoides as rightfully entitled to 

 priority over either jxtUidus or dolomiei as the specific name of a 

 species of -Black Bass. If it must be used, however, I think it wisest 

 to retain it, with Professor Gill, for the small-mouthed species. For 

 this purpose, we must consider tl^ sahnoides of Lacepede as complex, 

 including both species. The case would then be that supposed by 

 (1) above. We must hold further that Cuvier and Valenciennes 

 restricted the name to the small-mouthed form. No possible settle- 

 ment of the case can be free from question or objection. I jDropose 

 to adopt the following view of the case, proposed by Dr. Gill (in 

 lit.), to whom I have submitted the evidence above given. 



Dr. Gill remarks : 



" I think we can retain our old names (i. e., Microjjterus salmoides 

 and Microjotenis pallidus) on the following grounds: 



"(1) Let us admit that Labrus salmoides Lac. may be the small- 

 mouthed. 



"(2) The name salmoides, it may be considered, was re-established 

 by Cuvier and Valenciennes for the largest specimen (the small- 

 mouthed, according to your observations). The description was 

 evidently based on that, as appears from the number of scales, the 

 absence of any on the preopercular limb (' le linibe de son preoper- 

 cule [etc.] en manquent'), and the form of the dorsal. Even if it 

 is certain that the figure was taken from a large-mouthed specimen, 

 this would not aiFect the question, inasmuch as we must accept the 

 description when that is definitive, and such is the case here. 



" (3) It may be held that the name is further specialized by Cuvier 



