162 PROCEEDINGS OF UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM. 



County, Maryland. Another specimen I saw living in confinement in 

 the Blue Eidge Mountains, where it was caught two years ago. One 

 was killed quite recently near Ellicott City, Maryland. 

 Maryland Academy of Sciences, 



Baltimore, May 22, 1881. 



NOTC: OJV TBE liATIIiOin OEIVEKA. 



By THEODORE OIL.L.. 



In a late number of the Proceedings of the U. S. National Museum 

 (Vol. IV, p. 53), Messrs. Jordan and Gilbert have accepted the name 

 Bekaya instead of Gaulolatilus for a genus of the family Latilidce, with 

 a foot-note, ^^Gaulolatilus, Gill : nomen nudum.'" In order that the adop- 

 tion of this view may be at once arrested, it is advisable to give a history 

 of those names. 



In 1862, in the "Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of 

 Philadelphia" (p. 240), the name Gaulolatilus was proposed as the ge- 

 neric denomination of Latilus chrysops and its allies, in the following 

 terms : 



"The Malacanthini of Poey form a natural family. The Latilus chrys- 

 ops, VaL, does not, however, appear to be congeneric with the type of 

 Latilus, but is distinguished by its form and the structure of the fins. 

 It may be called Gaulolatilus chrysops." 



It will be thus seen (1) that the respects in which Gatilolatilus differs 

 from Latilus were indicated; (2) the relationships were exactly appre- 

 ciated; (3) a specific type was mentioned. There could consequently 

 be no doubt as to what was meant nor as to the characters by which it 

 should be distinguished. 



In 1864, in the "Proceedings of the California Academy of Natural 

 Sciences" (Vol. 3, p. 70), Dr. Cooper proposed the name oi Bekaya for a 

 supposed new fish, concerning which he had not the slightest concep- 

 tion as to its proper relationships, considering it "to be a very aberrant 

 form of the Percoid family, having many of the characters of other 

 orders" [sic! ], but that on the whole it seemed to be most nearly related 

 to "the genus Heterognaihodon, of Bleeker." The remarks respecting 

 the "other orders" and the affinities indicated the most complete mis- 

 apprehension as to the type. The description was equally at fault. 

 The "general shape" was said to be "elongated and fusiform," although 

 a shape less "fusiform" could scarcely be associated with moderate 

 elongation. In other respects the description was faulty and erroneous 

 or vague, but these lapses need not detain longer. 



The question arises in such a case. What is the advantage of any de- 

 scription? According to the rules of the British and American associa- 



