INTRODUCTORY NOTE 



The present memoir is the third part of a catalogue of the generic 

 names applied to fishes subsequent to January 1. 1858. With the other 

 parts it is a contribution to the stability of scientific nomenclature, the 

 genera being listed in order of date accompanied by the indication of the 

 type species of each. 



The first part (1758 to 1833) was intended to serve as an aid to the 

 International Commission of Zoological Nomenclature by bringing to- 

 gether the generic names of fishes as proposed in the formative period of 

 classification, together with the data by which authors who failed to con- 

 form to the Linnwan system could be considered, each on his merits. I 

 had at first no intention of continuing the series beyond 1833. but the data 

 gathered for the first part seemed to make the compilation of the catalogue 

 worth while. 



Part II covers what I have termed the mediaeval period of tax- 

 onomy — from 1833 to 1858. this completing the first century of names 

 in ichthyology. 



Part III represents tlie early modern period, dating from Darwin's 

 "Origin of Species" in 1858. In this epoch most authors began to see 

 that the fundamental basis of classification must be genetic and that the 

 problems involved in a natural grouping are vastly more complex than ap- 

 peared to the earlier authors. To paraphrase a saying of Dr. Elliott 

 Coues, genera and species are but larger and smaller twigs of a tree which 

 wc try to arrange as nearly as possible in accordance with nature's ramifi- 

 cations. 



This view applied to taxonomy involved an extensive subdivision of 

 accepted genera, the genus becoming a genetic conception rather than 

 a convenient pigeon-hole into which to throw species. 



The effort to reform classification in Ichthyology was undertaken 

 almost simultaneously by three eminent systematists. Dr. Picter Blecker 

 of Java, Dr. .Mbert Giinther of the British Museum, and Dr. Theodore 

 Gill of the Smithsonian Institution. Of these writers Dr. I'leckcr had by 

 far the greatest experience in field work, but iiis use of the writings of 

 other authors was not discriminating, and the names he chose for genera, 

 though technically correct, were largely clumsy and tasteless. Dr. 

 Giinther had at his disposal a greater range of material than any other 

 contemporary writer. His groupings were, however, of unequal value, 



