42 Mr. T. Gill on the Affinities of 



identity. I shall only recall the admission that Linnseus himself^ 

 after autopsy, referred one specimen of the same species to 

 Blennius (ffunnelius), and another to Ophidian (imberbe), that 

 Montagu wrote in the year 1812, and in the infancy of ichthyo- 

 logy, when the importance of attention to minutiae was less 

 generally appreciated than now, and that the identification of 

 his fish with Murcmoides gunnellus was probably stayed by the 

 improbability of his failure to recognize that common species. 



As Dr. Giinther, in the synonymy of " Gymnelis imberbis '^*, 

 has represented the ideas of the English naturalists, and as his 

 work is the last authority referring to it, an analysis and reduc- 

 tion of that synonymy to its proper elements will form a fitting 

 conclusion to these remarks. 



1. Murcsnoides-\ gunnellus , ex L. 



Ophidium imherbe, L. ; Montag. ; Turton, 88 ; FlemiDg, 201 ; Jenyns, 481; 



Yarrell, ed. 1. ii., ed. 2. ii. 412. 

 Cepolophis Montagui, Kaup. 

 Gymnelis imberbis, Kaup, Ap. ; Rich, in Yarrell, ed. 3 {fide Gthr.). 



2. Carapus% acus, Raf. ex Briin. 



Ophidium imberbe, Lac. pt. (Radial formula and caudal fin of Murcenoides 

 gunnellus.) 



* Dr. Giinther remarks that Gymnelis stigma and G. imberbis " probably 

 do not belong to this genus." 



Gymnelis stigma {Ophidium stigma. Lay and Benn., sic) is probably 

 congeneric with, and perhaps even closely related to, G. viridis, and it at 

 least greatly resembles some varieties of that variable species. The poor 

 figure and the assignment of " very small " scales to it led me, on a former 

 occasion, to think otherwise, like Dr. Giinther; but we must remember 

 that the notes and illustrations of Ophidium stigma were made by an in- 

 experienced naturalist, and that he may have been deceived as to the pre- 

 sence of scales. However, we may also recall that there is a great variation 

 in squamation in a genus representing a closely related subfamily, Lycodes. 



t The question will naturally arise, among those who contend that we 

 should date our nomenclature from the tenth edition of the ' Systema 

 Naturae ' (that being the first in which the binomial system is introduced), 

 whether we should not replace the name Murcenoides, Centronotus, or 

 Gunnellus by Ophidian. Perhaps this will eventually be done, since the 

 genus was well defined and its diagnosis only applicable to the 0. imberbe. 

 Others may contend that the name must be retained for the first species 

 (0. barbatum), in spite of its total disagreement. The decision of this 

 question may be suspended till the publication of the new rules of the 

 British Association. 



X The name Carapus was first connected with the Gymnot.us acus by 

 Rafinesque (Ind., 1819, pp. 37, 57), who only referred to that species, 

 although he doubtless intended his genus to correspond with Lacepede's 

 anonymous second subgenus oi Gymnotus, which included G. carapus, L., 

 G. acus, Ij.{=Fierasfer acus, Kaup)and G. rostratus, L. {=Rhamphichthys 

 rostratus, M., T.). A strict adherence to the laws will, however, necessitate 

 the retention of the name for the only species mentioned, C. acus. 



