VIII ' Preface. 



on insufficient material as well as to make remarks on syno- 

 nymy and nomenclatureJ>Tiis nomenclature and often also the 

 systematic part of his work (besides differing from our present 

 day conception) were liable to fluctuations, which adds new 

 difficulties to the use of his papers. 



In 1857 Bleeker published an „Index descriptionum spe- 

 cierum piscium Bleekerianarum in voluminibus I ad XIX Uiarii 

 Societatis Scientiarum Indo-Batavae", in 1858 an „Index spe- 

 cierum piscium in Vol. I — III Actorum Societatis Scient. Indo- 

 neerl. descriptarum", in the year 1859 his „Enumeratio spe- 

 cierum piscium hucusque in Archipelago indico observatarum, 

 adjectis habitationibus citationibusque ubi descriptiones earum 

 recentiores reperiuntur, nee non speciebus Musei Bleekeriani 

 Bengalensibus, Japonicis, Capensibus Tasmanicisque". But useful 

 though these works are they don't give later information than 

 the year 1858, while Bleeker's last paper appeared in 1880. 

 Moreover his „Enumeratio" is arranged systematically and 

 although the synonyms are given they don't appear in the 

 Index, so it is difficult to find a given species without knowing 

 Bleeker's nomenclature. 



-^.Finally we mention the „ Atlas ichthyologique des Indes 

 orientales", which is the chief work of Bleeker's life and 

 intended to be a repertorium of everything he had collected 

 about the fishes of the indo-australian Archipelago. It has, 

 notwithstanding its great and lasting merits, peculiar diffi- 

 culties for practical use, first and foremost being the regrettable 

 fact that owing to its author's premature death on 24 January, 

 1878 this standard work was never completed (vide page 26 

 of this volume). Another difficulty arises from the fact that 

 none of the 9 volumes has an index of synonyms, besides which 

 one must remember that the first volume appeared in 1862, 

 many years before the end of Bleeker's ichthyological career. V 



Under these circumstances it appeared necessary to facilitate 

 the use of Bleeker's papers by publishing a key to them. It 

 would hardly suffice to give a mere bibliographical list of 

 Bleeker's ichthyological works as he did himself in his auto- 



