6 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. ']T^ 



which platessa is type by tautonymy. But the proposal to insert into 

 Art. 30 the principle of " type by inclusion " was rejected by the Com- 

 mission at its Boston meeting. 



(2) Typical subgenus. — The view might be advanced that Fleming 

 here proposed, apparently for the first time, the typical subgenus 

 Pleuronectes, and that by citing only the name Pleuronectes platessa, 

 he designated the type by monotypy. Art. 30c. 



(3) Type by renaming. — The view might be advanced that Fleming 

 deliberately renamed Platessa 1817, for which the type had already 

 been determined by absolute tautonymy, hence that platessa became 

 automatically type of Pleuronectes s. str. Art. 3of . 



(4) Type by monotypy. — The view might be advanced that Flem- 

 ing, by quoting only platessa under Pleuronectes, definitely intended 

 to take this as type. 



In respect to this last view (4) different authors might differ in 

 opinion, for the point might be advanced that Fleming did not dispose 

 of all the original species of Pleuronectes 1758, and that he simply 

 mentioned platessa as an example of Pleuronectes s. str,, hence, that 

 "^rigidly construed " this is not a type selection. 



Nevertheless, from the premises here presented it seems clear that 

 Fleming, 1822, actually did propose the typical subgenus of Pleuro- 

 nectes, that he correctly named this subgenus as Pleuronectes, and that 

 he mentioned only one species (platessa) as representative of this 

 typical subgenus. Accordingly, unless there are important reasons 

 to the contrary, it would seem best to take platessa as type of Pleuro- 

 nectes. 



While the evidence seems to point to the conclusion that platessa 

 should be taken as type species of Pleuronectes on basis of Fleming 

 (1822, p. 388), it seems wise, in view of the possibility of a difference 

 of opinion (4) , to follow the case further in order to see how the views 

 given under (2) and (3) would coincide with the later history of the 

 generic name. 



Without entering upon a detailed discussion of this very confused 

 case of nomenclature, which involves many references in addition to 

 those cited by Doctor Jordan, attention is invited to the facts that — 



(a) Fleming's action in 1822 in substituting Pleuronectes for 

 Cuvier's genus Platessa, 1817, is followed by Bleeker ( 1862), Giinther 

 (1862), Leunis (1883), and Claus (1895), while Jordan' and Ever- 

 mann (1898), and Apstein (1915) definitely mention Pleuronectes 

 platessa as the type of Pleuronectes, and 



* Jordan (1917a, 13, The genera of fishes) accepts platessa as type of 

 Pleuronectes. 



