REVISION OF CARCHARHINID SHARK GENERA — SPRINGER 579 



In order to insure the stability of the name C. (S.) laticaudus, I 

 believe that a lectotype should be designated. In the present situation 

 the normal procedure would be to select the single stuffed specimen 

 upon which the original description was based. However, in view of 

 the importance of vertebral characters for shark classification, I have 

 chosen to select one of the alcohol-preserved specimens in the Paris 

 Museum (see "Material"). 



The type of C. (S.) macrorhynchos Bleeker is missing, but the descrip- 

 tion and figure are sufficient for placing it in synonymy. Giinther 

 (1870) first synonymized Bleeker's species with S. laticaudus, and 

 Bleeker, in an unpublished manuscript (Ennumeratio nova revisa) in 

 the Leiden museum, accepted this as correct. 



There is a history of confusion surrounding the trivial names 

 sorrakowa and palasorra, both of which have been applied to 

 S. laticaudus. RusseU (1803), not binomial nomenclature, described 

 "Pala Sorra" and "Sorra Kowah" from Vizgapatam, Coromandel, 

 India. The names used were native common names. Cuvier (1829) 

 added the following in a footnote to the last word under Le Bleu (Sq. 

 glaucus L.), which is the last species he mentions under Les Requins: 



Ajoutez le Squ. ustus, Dum. (Sq. carcharia minor, Forsk.), Lac, I, 

 VIII, 1; Requin a nageoires noires, Quoy et Gaym., Zool. de Freyc, pi. 43, 

 f. 1; le Sq. glauque, Lac, I, ix, 1, qui est different de celui de Bl.; le Sq, 

 ciliaris, Schn., pi. 31, dont les cil marquent seulement I'extreme jeunesse, 

 Le palasorrah [sic] et le sorrakowah [sic], Russ., XIV et un assez grand 

 nombre e'espece nouvelles que nous decrirons dans notre histoire de 

 poissons. 



There is no reason to believe from the information contained above 

 that Cuvier was intending to name Russell's forms. Rather it 

 seems he was merely citing the native names. In support of this is the 

 fact that the generic name (Sq.) that appears before the other species is 

 omitted before palasorrah and sorrakowah. Nevertheless, on the 

 basis of the above quotation most subsequent authors credited Cuvier 

 (1829) with authorship of Carcharias palasorra and C. sorrakowah. 

 Fowler (1936) first called attention to the fact that the first of these 

 two names could not date from Cuvier (1829) because it was not 

 proposed in binomial form. He did not credit the name, however, 

 nor did he mention sorrakowah. Klausewitz (1960) also recognized 

 that palasorrah as it appeared in Cuvier (1829) was not a valid name. 

 He assigned authorship of Carcharias palasorrah to Bleeker (1853) 

 and placed the name in synonymy with C. acutus Ruppell but gave 

 no reasons for his actions. He did not discuss sorrakowah. 



Miiller and Henle (1841), in their monograph of the Plagiostoma, 

 list Russell (1803) in their literature references and mention the 

 "Pana Sorrats" and the "Sorra Kowats" as doubtful synonyms of their 



