INTRODUCTION 



appear in systematic lists, like that of Sherborne {Index Animalium). 

 The Commission has already approved the names of Gronow and Com- 

 merson. If the present Commission should decide to reject the whole 

 series of "irreg-tilars," some future Com.mission may reverse the decision, 

 placing the element of priority above that of regularity. This possibility 

 we cannot forestall, while if once accepted there would be no successful 

 movement for their rejection. Previous decisions of the Commission, as 

 to Gronow and Commerson, point in the direction of general acceptance. 



It is especially important to have the status of questioned authors 

 determined as soon as may be, not only for the convenience of ichthyol- 

 ogists but for workers in other fields which may be affected by questions 

 of preoccupation. 



More important than the question of acceptance or rejection of some 

 or all of the questioned genera, is the securing of a final decision. This 

 the Commission will be asked to make as soon as practicable. Pending 

 this decision it is perhaps wise for systematic workers to refrain from 

 acceptance of the names questioned. 



The other problem is the assignment of generic types to the genera 

 of authors who had no conception of types. In doing this we have fol- 

 lowed as closely as may be the rules adopted by the Congress of Zool- 

 ogy, having especial regard to the "first reviser." In some cases we 

 have been in doubt on account of conflicting usages or even rules. But 

 in such cases the weight of authority of the Commission when exercised 

 should serve to turn the scale. With the authors subsequent to Cuvier, 

 1829, this matter rarely offers any embarrassment. The later authors 

 mostly look upon a genus, not as a pigeon-hole with arbitrary boun- 

 daries, but rather as a group of species, with certain definite structural 

 marks clustered around some definite species, the type of the genus. 



The writer asks from his colleagues the fullest criticism both as 

 to matters of fact and of opinion, before placing the contents of this 

 paper formally before the International Commission. We would es- 

 pecially request information concerning omissions. There are no doubt 

 numerous generic names overlooked in dictionaries and in obscure 

 publications. 



We have arranged in chronological order the generic names of fishes 

 published in the first seventy-five years of the history of ichthyological 

 taxonomy. The determination of the validity of genera is treated only 

 incidentally. Our main problem is the fixation of the type. 



Stanford University, California, June i, 1917. 



