Apkil 13, 1906.] 



SCIENCE. 



585 



it as a genus (' genre ') in essentially the same 

 terms as Ciivier had done but adding data 

 respecting the intestines. The additional data, 

 however, were simi^ly taken from Cuvier's 

 definition of Synbranchus on the assumption 

 that what was true of the latter was also of 

 the former. The date of the title page of the 

 ' Dietionnaire ' is 1816, the year previous to 

 that of the title page of the ' Eegne Animal ' 

 ■ (1817). 



Cloquet's notice is important inasmuch as 

 Ouvier gave only the French form (' les 

 Alabes ') of the name which many naturalists 

 of the present day would regard as inadmis- 

 sible. Cloquet's addition of the Latin name 

 is also prior to Oken's similar action (Jsis, 

 1817, 1183). 



A. Valenciennes furnished for the ' Dietion- 

 naire Universel d'Histoire Naturelle ' (I., 237, 

 1841) a notice of the genus Alahes defining it 

 by the single jugular branchial aperture, small 

 pectorals, small opercle, and three branchio- 

 stegal rays, ignoring the alleged disk. He 

 also ignored the attribution of the Indian 

 habitat, and referred to Peron as the collector 

 — ' On ne eonnait encore qu'une seule esp. de 

 ce g., rapportee par Peron, lors du voyage du 

 capitaine Baudin aus terres australes.' This 

 solves the question as to habitat raised by 

 Vaillant (p. 148). 



I had long ago considered the possibility of 

 the identity of Alabes and Oheilohranchus but 

 the evidence was altogether insufficient to 

 certify it, and had not the determination been 

 effected by means of the types of Alabes, it 

 might have been better to have rejected that 

 name as indeterminable. As it is, it is per- 

 haps necessary to revive it as the prior desig- 

 nation of Cheilohranchus and at the same time 

 to substitute the family name Alabetid^e and 

 the superfamily term Alabetoidea. In 1872, 

 recognizing the decided difference between the 

 genus and the Synbranchidse, I proposed for it 

 the family Chilobranehidffi and later (1896) 

 further removed it from the Synbranchidte as 

 a superfamily (Chilobranchoidea). I have 

 always regarded the group as having no deter- 

 minate relationship to the typical Symbranchia 

 and in 1872 retained it doubtfully among the 



Apodes ('Apodes? incerti sedis ')• In 1885 

 (' Standard Natural History,' III., 100), con- 

 .trasting it with the true Symbranchia I have 

 remarked, ' on the other hand, the Chilo- 

 branchidas (a family of doubtful relationship) 

 have only about twenty-one abdominal and 

 fifty-two caudal vertebrae.' The data are still 

 quite insufficient to determine the affinities of 

 the genus but sufficient to assure us that it is 

 not related to either the Symbranchia or the 

 Blenniidee. It is to be hoped that a com- 

 parative study of the skeleton may be made. 

 It should above all be ascertained what is the 

 nature of the paired ' fins ' and for this pur- 

 pose the morphology of the supporting bones 

 (if any) should be elucidated. 



Theo. Gill. 



the functions of the fins of fishes. 



The communication in a recent number of 

 Science (December 15, 1905) by A. Duges, 

 entitled ' Note on the Functions of the Fins 

 of Fishes,' deserves some attention, if only to 

 correct some of the impressions it leaves with 

 the reader. While the observations recorded 

 in the above-mentioned paper are interesting 

 enough as evidence from one more source, it 

 must not be thought, as the author states, that 

 the functions of the various fins have not been 

 ' treated in a practical manner up to the 

 present,' nor is it true that the regeneration 

 of the fins ' has not yet been observed, or at 

 least not published.' 



For the latter point I refer the author to 

 the work of Professor T. H. Morgan on 'Re- 

 generation in Teleosts ' ' and ' Further Experi- 

 ments on the Eegeneration of the Tail of 

 Fishes,' ^ dealing with the results of experi- 

 mentation on the regeneration of paired and 

 unpaired fins in five genera, Tautogolabrus 

 (Ctenolabrus), Opsanus (Bairdchus) , Fundu- 

 lus, Sienotomus and Decapterits. 



As to the use of the fins, H. Strasser pub- 

 lished in 1882° a good account of the move- 



' Arohiv fur Entioiokelungsmechanik der Or- 

 ganismen, X., 1900, pp. 120-134. 



'Ibid., XIV., 1902, pp. 539-561. 



• ' Zur Lehre von der Ortsbewegung der Fisehe 

 durch Beugungen des Leibes und der unpaaren 

 Flossen.' 



