660 Bashford Dean Memorial Volume 



COMMON N.^MES— BULLHEAD SHABJCS 



In view of the existing confusion in the use of scientific names for the genus and 

 family under consideration, the need for an undisputed common name is obvious. A few- 

 authors (Waite, 1896; Dean, 1901.2 and 1904; and Whitley, 1938 and 1940) have used the 

 term Port Jackson Shark in a generic sense: but to the present wnriter this practice seems 

 very objectionable. For more than a century, the name Port Jackson Shark had been used 

 for one species only — the one first found at Port Jackson — save in a few instances where 

 the identification of species was incorrect. 



Waite (1898 and 1899) has referred to Heterodontus galeatus, in which the supraor' 

 bital ridges are very tall, as the "'Crested Shark'', and WTiitley (1938 and 1940) has called 

 it the ""Crested Port Jackson Shark''. The name Crested Shark would be appropriate for 

 the entire genus, but it has not been so used. Whether it would apply to the entire 

 family Heterodontidae (Cestraciontidae) as at present constituted (following the most 

 recent classification, that of Zittel, 1932) is problematical. 



BuLLHE-\D Sh.\rks. — There is no satisfactory common name that has been 

 used exclusively to designate all species of the genus Heterodontus, but the term Bullhead 

 Sharks (from the form of the head and snout) has been used by Jordan and Evermann 

 (1896) and by Bridge (1904) for the family Heterodontidae. Since all the surviving species 

 of this family belong to one genus, Heterodontus, the name Bullhead Sharks will serve the 

 needs of those who are mainly interested in recent forms. The same consideration applies 

 even though many genera (e.g., Hyhodus) included by Bridge in the family Heterodontidae, 

 are now assigned to a separate family, the Hybodontidae. The fact that the common name 

 Bullhead Shark seemingly appHes to two (closely related) families of sharks, one entirely 

 extinct, need trouble no one — least of all the paleontologists, who are not much interested 

 in common names. 



The neime Bullhead Shark is appropriate for all six species of Heterodontus. Fremin' 

 \T.lle"s drav,-ing (1840) of H. quoyi, which shows a small head, is inaccurate. A better 

 drav,Tng of the same specimen, by Valenciennes (1846), is reproduced as my Text 'figure 

 16, page 676. For related fossil forms, the evidence is naturally incomplete; but an 

 example with nearly perfect skeleton may be found in Hyhodus haujfianus E. Fraas (Text- 

 figures 27 and 28, page 695). The profile of the head and anterior part of the body 

 bears a marked resemblance to Heterodontus as represented by my specimens of H. quoyi 

 and H. francisci, described in a later section of this article. These specimens (two of each 

 species) are not only "bullheaded" but more or less humpbacked, like the fossil Hyhodus, 

 in the region dorsal to the bases of the pectoral fins. This feature is not represented in 

 some drau-ings of Heterodontus; but it is showm in Carman's outHne drawing of an adult 

 H. phiUipi (1888, Fig. 1, pi. 18); in Maclay and Macleay's drawings of a very young 

 specimen of H. phillipi (my Text-figure 8, page 668) and of a young female H. japonicus 

 (my Text-figure 23, page 691); in Jordan's portrayal (1905, Fig. 315) of an adult H. 

 francisci; also in Kumada and Hiyama's figure (1937) of an adult Gyropleurodus peruanus 

 (Heterodontus quoyi). Dean's photograph of a fresh-caught Japanese Bullhead Shark (my 



