222 PEOCEE-DINGS OF UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM. 



species had been more than once described under different names by 

 Eafiuesqiie and Le Sueur. Of these names, Lepomis palMus Raf. for 

 the large-mouthed BLick Bass, Micropterns dolomieu Lac. for the south- 

 ern, and Bodianvs achigan Raf. for the northern variety of the small- 

 mouth liave priority over the others. All these, therefore, antedate any 

 precise definition of the name sahnoides. 



The question as to wliether a specific name, at first loosely applied 

 and afterwards precisely fixed, shall claim priority from its first use or 

 not, has been differently answered by difierent writers, and has perhaps 

 never been settled by general usage. I suppose that the amount of 

 doubt or confusion arising from its use or rejection enters with most 

 writers as an element. The name salmoides, left unsettled by Lacepede, 

 has been generally received by writers, in consequence of the supposed 

 precision given to it by Cuvier. We have seen, however, that both 

 species were included by Ouvier under one name, and that we must look 

 farther for real restriction of the species. The first distinct use of the 

 name salmoides for any particular species is by Holbrook, for the large- 

 mouthed form. On the basis of the first unquestionable restriction, the 

 name, if used at all, must be apiilied to that species. Forty years pre- 

 \'ious to this restriction, however, the specific name _2><x??id«*s was conferred 

 on the same fish by Rafinesque. 



In the writings of nearly all the older naturalists, as well as in many 

 of the later ones, we find descriptions of species which are really 

 generic in their value, and which, as our knowledge of species becomes 

 greater, cannot be disposed of with certainty or even with any high 

 degree of probability, for absolute certainty rarely accompanies any 

 identification. 



In the absence or imjDossibility of any general rule regarding such 

 cases, the following supposed examples wiU illustrate what seems to the 

 present writer a fair method of treating them. 



Let us suppose that the genus Micropterus contains two weU-marked 

 species; that to one of these the name salmoides was early applied; that 

 next the names dolomiei and pallidus were applied to the two respect- 

 ively, and that subsequently the name salmoides was restricted to the one 

 called pallidus. 



Now if (1) the original salmoides were definitely a complex species, 

 distinctly including both, we may hold its author to be a " conservative" 

 writer, and that the subsequent restriction, like the restriction of a 

 genus, is a change of view or the elimination of an error. In this case, 

 the name salmoides should be retained, dating its priority from its orig- 

 inal use, and applying to the species pallidus. 



If (2) the original salmoides be not complex, but simply uncertain, the 

 probabilities being undeniably in favor of its identity with pallidus 

 rather than with dolomiei., it should be adof»ted instead of pallidus. Abso- 

 lute certainty of identification cannot be expected of many names older 

 than the present generation, and eacli writer must judge for himself of 



