BY J. DOUGLAS OGILBY. Le 
the crux of the whole question :—* Formerly I believed 
that my oltgolepis was identical with the wnicolor of 
Valenciennes, but the examination which I was privileged 
to make in Paris, of the three examples which served 
Valenciennes for the establishment of his wnicolor, has 
convinced me that not only is oligolepis very distinct from it, 
but also that wnicolor is founded on three individuals which 
belong to at least two species, whilst it is not 
mentioned in the description from which of the three that 
has been taken. All three specimens have about 50 scales 
in a longitudinal series, which proves that it cannot rationally 
be confounded with oligolepis. In the individuals from 
Vanikoro and the Seas of India the dorsal fin commences 
well in advance of the anal and is composed of 13 rays, and 
I presume that it is from these examples that the descrip- 
tion has been taken. These then should constitute the 
true wnicolor. As for Valenciennes’ third example, which 
came from Java, it is a very distinct species, with the dorsal 
fin originating opposite the first anal ray and supported by 
10 rays only. This individual appears to me to be indis- 
tinguishable from Exocetus oxycephalus Bleeker, Valen- 
ciennes having failed to recognise it as a distinct species.’’* 
The italics in the above paragraph respecting the origin 
of the dorsal fin are mine. 
The above quotation fixes without fear of contradiction 
the Exocetus unicolor of Valenciennes as a Cypsilurus, 
firstly because the dorsal formula of 13 rays given by that 
author belongs (fide Bleeker) to the two specimens in which 
“the dorsal fin commences well in advance of the anal,” 
secondly because Bleeker was the earliest author to fix 
the name uwnicolor on a definite specimen, and thirdly when 
two of three examples have been proved to belong to a 
particular genus we would naturally take one of the 
majority as the type of the species in preference to the single 
example forming the minority, no type specimen having 
been designated by the author; and more especially in 
this case where the arbitrary selection of such a type would 
wilfully flout the author’s own determination as regards 
the number of the dorsal rays. Valenciennes’ species 
should, therefore, be included in the genus Cypsilurus, 
* Atlas Ichth., vi, p. 70. 
