EDIBLE EISHKS OF QUEENSLAND.— OGILBY. 177 



Note: — Although I am compelled, owing to an irrational law, to subscribe 

 to the aphorism enunciated by Jordan and jNIetz^ ' with regard to the nomenclature 

 of certain teuthidoid genera. I can not refrain from entering a strenuous protest 

 against a law which forces us into such a position as here occurs. Briefly stated — 

 Gronow in 1765 formed the mononomial genus Ilcpatus^^ for the species which 

 was subse(|uently named Tcut/iis javus^'' by Linnu'us. and of which he gives an 

 unmistakable description and figure. With this species he associates a second, 

 which he separates as '^Ilcpatiis mucronc reficxo utrinque props caudam," but 

 this is a composite species, manufactured from Catesby's Turdus rhomb oidalis,^'^ 

 a West Indian fish, afterwards named Chatodon ccBrideus^'' by Schneider, and 

 the Ikan Maroeke^^ of Valentyn, an East Indian fish, now known as Colocopus 

 lamhdurus Gill.^'' Now, since it is inconceivable that a composite species could be 

 used as the tyi:)e of a genus, it is clear that the true type of He pat us Gronow is 

 Tcuthis javus Linmvus, which is not only the first species mentioned by Gronow 

 but also the one species legally available. Jordan and Evermann materially 

 assisted the confusion by stating that Tenthis JiepatKs Linnnsus,-*' a species with 

 which Gronow was unacquainted, was the type of his genus. In 1766, one year 

 after Gronow, Linnajus established the genus T cut his, his first species being 

 ' named T. hepatus, while the second is the T. javus above mentioned. 1\ hepatus 

 is a well-known Caribbean fish, said by Jordan and Evermann to be " the most 

 abundant species of the genus" and, therefore, eminently fitted to be the type 

 of the Linnean genus. So far so good; but in 1817 Cuvier, ignoring the 

 simplicity and harmony of this arrangement, must needs step in and turn the 

 whole nomenclature topsy-turvy by selecting Linnteus' second species, already 

 the type of Gronow 's Hepatus, as the type of Tcuthis, which he does not even 

 spell correctly; Acanthurus Forskal, who formed it for a section of Chcetodon 

 with C. unicornis as the type, as the representative of Linnanis' first species of 

 Teuthis; and finally in 1829, Siganus Forskal is substituted for the T. javus 

 group, the Linnean genus being incontinently dropped. I do not think that in 

 all zoological nomenclature a more outrageous instance of mischievous muddling 

 can be brought forward than this Avhich I have here exposed, and I trust that 

 in the near future the International Congress will frame a law, which will 

 permit us to revert to natural conditions, so that Teuthis javus may be legally 

 recognised as the type of Hepatus Gronow, T. hepatus as that of Teuthis 

 Linnaeus, and Chmtodon unicornis as that of Acanthurus Forskal. 



In order, therefore, to bring this and similar anomalies before the notice 

 of the next Congress, I beg to formulate the following proposition for their con- 

 sideration, with regard to the law which permitted an individual, in, defiance 

 of the original author's rights, to select any species that suited him as the type 

 of the original genus instead of the first species mentioned — that " a law which 

 creates difficulties where none exist is opposed to reason and common sense and 

 should be deleted." 



1* Mem. Carnegie Miis., vi, 1913, p. 44. '' '■''' 



^* Zoophylacium, 1765, p. 113. ' 



15 Syst. Nat., ed. 12, i, 176G, p. 507. 



i« Nat. Hist. Carolina, &c., ii, 1743, pi. x, fig. 1. 



i" Bloch, Syst. lohth., 1801, p. 214. 



1* Amboina, iii, 1724, fig. 77. 



" Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., vii, 1884, p. 279. 



'« Fish. North & Mid. Amer., pt. 2, 1898, p. 1689. 



