NO. 4 OPINIONS 91 TO 97 7 



JMeanwhilc the .hnorc Pixuiua of Marcgrave's pre-Linnaoan llisloria Natur- 

 alis Brasiliae edited by Dr. \\'ilhclm Piso is brought into the synonynn\ This 

 is a crude hgure of some small goliy with two dorsal tins, perhaps an lilcotris, 

 but not the actual type of any specific name. 



In 1800, Lacepede cstabUshed a genus Gobiomoroldcs on a dried fish " sent 

 by Holland to France," which he identified as Gobius plsonis, naming it Gobio- 

 moroidcs piso. It could, however, not be either Elcofris fisoiiis or " A more 

 pi.viona" as it had a single dorsal of 45 rays and canine teeth. It was probably 

 not a goby, and the name cannot be used for Elcofris. 



Elcotris lext appears with Cuvier (Regne Animal i, 2'^y, 1817) who accepts 

 the name from Gronow, and gives a correct definition. His types are specimens 

 from Levaillant taken in Surinam. The species described by Cuvier and Valen- 

 ciennes as Elcotris gyriiius later authors have generally regarded as the type 

 of Elcotris. It is identified by Jordan & Evermann with Gobius pisoiiis Gmelin. 



We have apparently two alternatives in case Gronow's names, " binary " but 

 not binomial, are not accepted. 



(i) We may use the name Elcotris as dating from Schneider, taking Gobius 

 pisonis Gmelin, waiving the fact that this is a " species non definienda " in 

 Schneider's conception — thus stabilizing current nomenclature. 



(2) We may apply the name Elcotris to some one of the species enumerated 

 by Schneider, thus arbitrarily displacing one of the following well-established 

 names: I'alcncicnuca, Nomcus, Apocryplcs, Hyhsclcotris, Bolcophtlialnius or 

 Pomatovtus, genera of later date included in the incoherent mass. 



Convenience as well as justice is served by adopting the first alternative, 

 using the name Elcotris in the sense of Gronow and Cuvier with Gobius pisonis 

 as the type. 



The name Gobiouioroidcs has no place in this connection, and its type is as yet 

 unidentified. 



Epinephelus Rloch, 1792: type Epiucphclus uiarfiiinilis IMoch. 



The genus Epincpliclus was based on E. afcr, E. iiiari/iiialis, /:. iiicrra, and E. 

 ruber: nmrgiiuilis and mcrra are congeneric, and belong to the great group 

 called Efiuc/'liclus by Gill, Bleeker, and nearly all recent authors. Of these, 

 marginalis is typical. The species named first, afcr, has been on that account 

 chosen as type by Fowler. This species was separated as the type of Alphcstcs 

 by Bloch & Schneider, 1801 ; ruber was named as type by Jordan & Gilbert, 

 in 1882, who supposed it to be congeneric with umri/iualis and this species under 

 another name (aciifirostris Cuv. & Val.) became the type of Parepinephclus 

 Bleeker, 1875. Justice and convenience are best served by retaining the name 

 Epinephelus for its chief components, typified by E. iiuinjiiialis, as understood 

 by nearly all authors. Otherwise the genus would stand as Cerua Bonaparte, 

 1837, unless, with b'owler, we recognize Epincpliclus '/igas (Perca gigas) L. 

 as the type of Scrraiius Cuvier, 1817, a change I think unnecessary. 



Gymxothor.\x Bloch, 1795 : type Gyiintothora.v icticularis Bloch. 



As originally given, Gyuuwthora.v was sinii)ly a substitute name for Muracna 

 L. Later, in dividing this e\tensi\e genus, Bleeker and after him (hmther used 

 the name Gyuuiothorax for one of its great divisions, and this arrangement 

 has been largely followed. The first fixation of type may be held to separate 

 Gyiiinotliorax from Muracna, and I think that the use of the former name 



