INTRODUCTION. 7 



not appear that anything would be gained in favor of a stable nomenclature 

 either by adopting the genus from Risso or from the next in order, Blain- 

 ville, 1816, who changes the name to Narcobatus. As Narcacion has been 

 applied only to the electric rays and as it was the first generic name given 

 to the genus with a type after 1758, it has been recognized in the present 

 work. 

 Dasybatus. — Klein, 1742, Hist. pise, miss., 3, p. 34, founded this genus and 

 placed in it as the first species " Pastinaca marina, quae Dioscoridis; Fab. 

 Columnae. Willughby Tab. D. f. 3." This species is the "Pastinaca 

 marina Dioscoridis Tab. 28 of Columna, 1592 and 1744 in the Phytobasanos, 

 p. 105 of the reprint. Plate 28 also bears the names Tpvycjv ©aXacrcrta 

 Squatinoraia, whence Trygon thalassia Miiller and Henle, 1841, and of 

 Giinther, 1870. In the Schauplatz der natur, 1775, 1, p. 992, Dasybatus 

 of Klein reappears and its first species is '^ Pastinaca Marina des Dioscori- 

 dis, Fabii Columnae. Willughby, Tab. D. 5, fig. 3," which figure is repro- 

 duced from that of Columna. This species was unknown to Linne, or was 

 confused with his Raia pastinaca, 1758. Walbaum, 1792, republishes the 

 genus without naming the species; in 1793, Ichthyol. Enod., p. 35, the 

 species is given as "Raia pastinaca L. S. N. 396" (1766) which included 

 more than one species; he also cites plate 82 of Bloch, which represents 

 Dasybatus pastinacus and not D. marinus. Instead of Dasybatus from 

 Klein in the Schauplatz, and from Walbaum, some prefer to take Dasyatis 

 from Rafinesque, 1810, for these sting rays, claiming that the earlier name 

 was not regularly estabhshed. Dasyatis of Rafinesque was first published 

 in his work "Caratteri di alcuni nuovi generi, etc., p. 16; it included but 

 one species, Dasyatis ujo Raf . In a later work, the Indice of the same year, 

 he took his D. ujo and made a new genus of it, Uroxis, naming the type 

 Uroxis ujus, Indice, p. 48. After this he founded the genus Dasyatis 

 again on another type, Raia pastinaca Linne, 1758. In other words Rafin- 

 esque took its only species out of the genus Dasyatis to make a new genus 

 and afterward made another new genus under the old name with a new 

 type species, Indice, p. 49. It is very evident he did not consider Uroxis 

 ujus to be congeneric with Dasyatis pastinaca Linne, Raf. Dasyatis ujo, 

 actually the type of the genus Dasyatis, has never been recognized; no 

 known species of Dasybatus agrees with its description; consequently it 

 seems better to leave Dasyatis with its type, the only species, until it can be 

 determined. On the other hand there is no doubt concerning Dasybatus 



