288 Miscellaneous. 
MISCELLANEOUS. 
A Matter of Nomenclature. By Enear R, Waite. 
In a recent paper * I proposed the generic name Prosoplismus for 
Histioptcrus recurvirostris, Richardson. Since the publication of 
this paper I have purchased some parts of Stemdachner and Doder- 
lein’s ‘“‘ Beitrige zur Kenntniss der Fische Japan’s ” f. 
In this work I find the name Pentaceropsis applied to H. recurvi- 
rostris and H. labiosus, Giinther ; it therefore has precedence of my 
name. I cannot admit an alliance of these two species ; the latter 
should either re-enter Histiopterus or be made the type of a new 
genus, with H. Farnelli, Waite, as an associate, such being a name 
to replace Richardsonia, Castelnau (preoccupied). 
In the absence of the actual work on the fishes of Japan, my 
action was unavoidable, for the genus Pentuceropsis was omitted 
from tbe ‘ Zoological Record,’ though Histiopterus, under which it 
occurs, was duly noted (Zool. Rec. 1883, p. 19). It is naturally 
also omitted from the new ‘ Index Zoologicus.’ This omission is 
responsible not only for my name Prosoplismus, but also for the 
re-application (in 13889) of Pentaceropsis by Sladen to a genus of 
Echinodermata, which cannot, of course, be maintained. 
In drawing attention to the omission from the ‘ Zoological Record’ 
I do not desire to attach blame to the Recorders: such is really 
merited by the authors—first, for naming a genus in what is practi- 
cally a footnote, without distinctive heading.; and, second, for intro- 
ducing into a work on Japanese fishes the deseription of an Austra- 
lian species. ‘These two points are covered by the later recommen- 
dations proposed in the second report of the British Association 
Committee on Zoological Bibliography and Publication (1897). 
Art. 6 reads :—‘‘ That new names should not be proposed in irrele- 
vant footnotes or anonymous paragraphs” (p. 361). Pentaceropsis 
occurs as a footnote, and is irrelevant to the title and scope of the 
work, 
Pentaceropsis naturally suggests Pentaceros, which also occurs (p. 8) 
in the work cited. This name has been considered as applicable to 
fishes, because its earliest use, by Linck in Echinodermata (1733), 
is pre-Linnean. It did not appear in ichthyological literature until 
1829 (Cuvier and Valenciennes), whereas Schulze used it in 1760, 
and thus established the name for the Asteroidea. A statement of - 
the case will be found in Sladen’s Report on the Asteroideat. I 
am not aware that any name has yet been proposed to’ replace 
Pentaceros in ichthyology. 
Australian Museum, Sydney, 
May 26, 1908. 
* Rec. Austr. Mus. v. 1903, p. 58, pl. vi. 
+ Denk. Akad. Wien, xlviii. 1883, p. 13 (footnote), pl. yi. 
{ ‘Challenger’ Report, xxx, 1889, p. 343, 
