150 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [April, 



NOTE ON THE GENUS KXJHLIA. 

 • - BY THEODORE GILL. 



The genus Diiles was first named by Cuvier and Valenciennes in 1829. 

 in the Histoire Naturelle des Poissons (III, 111), for fishes resembling 

 Ceyitropristes, but distinguished by the presence of only six branclii- 

 ostegal rays. The genus is divided into two sections, the first with 

 three points to the opercle and an undivided dorsal (as in Centro- 

 pristes) and the second with two points to the opercle and an emarginate 

 dorsal. The name has been restricted to the first section for many 

 years, and for the second section (not related to Centropristes) the 

 generic name Kuhlia, given by Gill in 1861, has been used. Recently, 

 however, Mr. Henry W. Fowler, in the Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila., 1906 

 (p. 510), has contended that Kuhlia "is superseded b}^ Dules Cuvier,, 

 Rhgne Animal, ed. 2, II, 1829, p. 147 (type Centropomus rupestris 

 Lacepede by first species)." 



Cuvier in the Regne Animal especially refers, in a footnote, to the 

 "Dules auriga Cuv. et Val., Ill, li," etc., and that work was published 

 in advance of the Regne Animal. In accordance with Mr. Fowler's own 

 principles, then, Kuhlia should be retained as well as the family name 

 Kuhliidce, and not Dules and Dideidw (or Dulidce). 



Mr. Fowler also remarks that "the specific name of the species gener- 

 ally known as Kuhlia malo should be " Dules mato Lesson, Voy. aut. 

 Mond. Coquille, Zool, III, 1830 (March 22, 1828) ,i p. 223, thus having 

 priority over Dules malo Valenciennes, Hist. Nat. Poiss., VII, 1831,. 

 p. 360." 



Inasmuch, however, as Lesson, at the place cited, especially quotes- 

 "Dules malo Cuv., Poiss., t. VII, p. 479," it is obvious that the volume 

 in question (VII) must have been set up and published before the 

 description by Lesson was even in print, notwithstanding the dates of 

 the title-pages. 



It may be added that the proper indigenous Tahitian name of the 

 Kuhlia appears to have been Mato and not Malo, and Cuvier's name 

 may have resulted from a typographical error, in which case Kuhlia 

 mato would be the correct form. 



1 It is not e\ident what is meant by the date "March 22, 1828 "j certainly the 

 volume of the Coquille could not have been published then. 



