368 Prof. J. van der Hoeven on the Genus Menobranchus 
thought it more proper to use the name Cryptobranchus, proposed 
for the Hell-bender by Leuckart in 1821*. 
It seems to me beyond doubt that, even if we demur to this 
union, the two species in question cannot be referred to two 
different families. As socn as we unite them, we must renounce 
the distinction of the Derotreta. I would defer to the judgment 
expressed in so clear and decided a manner by Prof. Hyrtl in 
his ‘ Schediasma anatomicum’+. 
In order to place this gigantic Batrachian in the family of the 
Proteidz or ichthyoid Urodela, it would be necessary to strike 
out from among the characters of that division that of the 
possession of permanent branchie or branchial fissures. The 
genera are not numerous enough to render advisable a further 
division. But there would still remain to be determined the 
actual disposition to be given to these genera in order that their 
various relations might be clearly set forth according to the 
several degrees of their reciprocal affinity. I entered upon this 
question more than thirty years ago, when engaged upon the 
class of Reptiles in connexion with the second edition of my 
‘ Manual of Zoology.’ I considered it a second time when oppor- 
tunity was offered me for studying two specimens of Meno- 
branchus through the liberality of the Smithsonian Institution 
of Washington. 
I have not as yet spoken of this genus, which deserves a dis- 
tinct place in the family which we are engaged upon at present. 
It was constituted under its present name by Harlan, who at 
* Oken’s ‘Isis,’ 7.c. The name Menopoma was proposed by Harlan, 
who had previously given the name Abranchus to this genus, which he 
fancied was “‘ destitute of branchize at all periods of its existence’ (p. 233), 
This notion, contrary to all probability, has been refuted by facts. Mayer, 
formerly Professor of Anatomy at Bonn, found branchial tufts, which, 
however, were already on the eve of disappearing, in a specimen of 4 inches 
6 lines, obtained through the Prince de Wied. (Analecten fiir vergleichende 
Anatomie, von Dr. A. F.C. J. Mayer : Bonn, 1835, p. 95.) It would seem 
that the name Menopoma owes its origin to the persistence of an oper- 
culum, 7. e. of a prolongation of the skin extending over the aperture on 
the sides of the neck (from pevew, to remain, and m@pma, operculum). 
As there is not any operculum properly so called, I think that the name 
Cryptobranchus deserves to be retained, and that there is no necessity for 
introducing a new name. ‘Tritomegas, proposed by the authors of the 
‘ Erpétologie générale’? (Duméril et Bibron, 1854, ix. p. 153), even though 
its actual composition were better than it is, would be inadmissible, as 
having been previously employed, though according to a very different 
etymology, for a genus of Hemiptera (Hist. Nat. des Insectes Témiptéres, 
by C. J. ‘Bp: Amyot and Audinet-Serville: Paris, 1843, p. 98). 
+ Cryptobranchus japonicus, ‘Schediasma anatomicum,’ Vindobone, 
1865, 4to, p.4. “Cum Menopomate affinitas tanto argumentorum pon- 
dere vindicata fuit, ut nulle amplius circa hance questionem lites moveri 
possint.”’ 
