UNNiEUS, 1766 23 



\III. LIN'N^US, Systcma Natura, Ed. XII, 1766. 



Carolus Linn.eus. 



This edition contains four genera in addition to those given in the 

 Tenth Edition. 



Cepola Linnaeus, 445 ; type C. t.enia L. = C. rubescens L. 

 Unquestioned. 



Amia Linn?eus, 500; type A. calva L. 



The generic name Amia appears in the Twelfth Edition of the Systema 

 Naturcr, in 1766. It had been used earlier by Gronow, in 1763, for a pcrcoid genus, 

 later called Apocon by Lacepede. 



In the opinions already rendered by the Commission, it was decided that the 

 generic names in Gronow's Zoofhylaceum, published in 1763, between the tenth 

 and twelfth editions of the Systcma Natura, should be adopted, although his names 

 for species were polynomial. Gronow was an e.xcellent ichthyologist, with broader 

 knowledge than Linna;us, and later adopted the Linnjcan nomenclature. In view of 

 the fact that his names are not in current usage, and that he had not then accepted 

 binomial nomenclature, most recent authors have rejected them, unless revived by 

 some binomial writer. The transfer of Amia from the ganoid to a percoid genus 

 is, however, peculiarly undesirable, and it may be urged that general convenience 

 justifies a special exception in this case. If Amia be used for Apocon, Amia L. is 

 replaced by Amiatus Rafinesque, 1815. 



Teuthis. 507, after Browne; type Cii.etodon cerui.eus Bloch = TEU- 

 Tiiis iiEi'ATUs L. in part. 

 The name Teuthis was applied by Linnaeus in the twelfth edition of the Sys- 

 tema Naturee, to the two species which formed the genus Hepatus of Gronow, in 

 1765. These were named Teuthis hepatus and Teuthis javus. The name 

 Teuthis was borrowed from Browne, a non-binomial author. The two Linnsean 

 species belong to different families. The species first named hepatus may be re- 

 garded as the type of Hepatus, as already indicated. The name Teuthis should 

 properly go with T. hepatus, as the name is borrowed from Browne, who applied 

 it to a single species, confused with Teuthis hepatus by Gronow and Linnxus, the 

 Ch.€todon c^ruleus of Bloch. This species is a near relative of the type of 

 Hepatus. This decision follows the arguments of Dr. Gill. It is reasonable, but 

 not above question. Meanwhile several authors, notably Cantor and Giinther, use 

 Teuthis for T. javus (Sic.anus ForskSI), while others suppress it altogether. 

 Still others misspell it, as Theutys, Theutis, etc. 



Elops Linnaeus, 508; type Eix>PS saurus L. 

 Monotypic. 



