PROCEEDINGS OF UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM. 223 



tlio degrees of probability. If we may express it numerically, a proba- 

 bility of 75 per cent, should perhaps be sufficient, and this probability 

 should be unquestionable — that is, not merely subjective and varying 

 with the mental differences of the different writers. 



If (.3) the original .salmoideshe evidently a J/icropferHs, but hopelessly 

 uncertain as to the species intended, it should claim priority from its 

 first use for a definite species of Micropterus. If the name pallidus 

 intervene between its first use and its final precise use, salmohJes should 

 become a synonjin of pallidus. and should not be available for the other 

 species. This rule is followed more or less consistently by most writers, 

 and it seems to me a fair one. The revival of hoijelessly uncertain 

 ancient specific names in place of well-deli ned modern ones is productive 

 only of confusion, and is open to gross abuse. The revival even of well- 

 defined but forgotten names is confusing enough, and it has been 

 strongly objected to by many writers. 



If (4) the name salmoides, 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 pallidus for the 

 same species, it should be retained, dating its acceptance from its sec- 

 ond use, and the name pallidus should be considered as a synonym of 

 salmoides. 



If (5) the name salmoides should have been adopted by the second 

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

 species which could not reasonably be identical with the original sal- 

 moides, the identification should be taken as an erroneous one, and should 

 not be considered in our nomenclature. 



The actual st;iteof the name salmoides is that supposed under (3) above. 

 I do not consider the name salmoides as rightfully entitled to priority over 

 either pallidus 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 GiU, for the small-mouthed species. For this purpose, we 

 must consider the salmoides of Lacepede as complex, including both 

 species. The case would then be that sui^posed by (1) above. We must 

 hold further that Cuvier and Valenciennes restricted the name to the 

 small-mouthed form. No possible settlement of the case can be free from 

 question or objection. I propose to adopt the foUowiug view of the case, 

 proposed by Dr. Gill (in lit), to whom I have submitted the evidence 

 above given. 



Dr. Gill remarks: 



"I thinlv we can retain our old names (i. e. Micropterus salmoides and 

 Micropterus pallidus) on the following grounds: 



"(1) Let us admit that Lahrus salmoides Lac. may he 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 



