498 A COLLECTION OF FISHES FROM SUMATRA. 



or attention to geographical distribution. Many forms said to range throughout the 

 Indian and Pacific Oceans should be examined and compared by means of abund- 

 ance of material before such views can be established as absolutely final. My own 

 acquaintance with the Japanese ichthyic fauna has at least convinced me of its great 

 difference from the East Indian, but few forms straying up in the warm southern 

 current. So far as one may judge at present that of the Indian basin has much in 

 common, but just what exhaustive material will indicate remains to be seen. The 

 work of the early writers on Red Sea and East African forms still needs the most 

 careful and scrutinizing attention, as it forms the basis of much of the work of 

 their successors also in other regions. In some cases 1 have been led to renounce 

 their decisions, due in larger part to incongruities and differences accruing in the 

 works of the latter. Polynesia, Micronesia and Australia also indicate different 

 faunas, though they also display considerable East Indian infusion. 



In matters of nomenclature I have followed the code of the American Ornithol- 

 ogists' Union, with several exceptions. These have, already been noticed by Drs. 

 Jordan and Evermann. They concern the names of males having precedence over 

 names of females when occurring on the same page, and the spelling of names. 

 These conclusions appear to me valid. However, I do not accept the views of Dr. 

 Jordan regarding the selection of the first species as the type of a composite genus, 

 unless the author or first reviser has so indicated. Elimination is now so generally 

 accepted by the majority of American naturalists that its rejection can only lead to 

 confusion. I might also add that all names spelled differently, such as Zenodon 

 for Xenodon, etc., are regarded as different. 



