1923.] Fauna of the Chilka Lake : Fish. 731 



1906. Leiognathus edentulus, Jordan and Seale, Bull. U. S. Bur. Fish. XXV, p. 273. 

 ] 906. Leiognathus equula, Jordan and Seale, Bull. Ü. S. Bur. Fish. XXV, p. 273. 



1907. Leiognathus edentula, Evermann and Seale, Bull. Ü. S. Bur. Fish. XXVI, p. 69. 



1907. Equula edentula Lloyd, Reo. Ind. Mus., I, p. 228. 



1908. Leiognathus edentulus, Seale and Bean, Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus. XXXIII, p. 242. 

 1908. Equula edentula, Gilchrist and Thompson, Ann. S. Afrie. Mus. VI, p. 188. 



1911. Leiognathus edentulum, Jordan and Richardson, Mem. Carnegie Mus. IV, p. 180. 



1912. Leiognathus argentium, Snyder, Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., XLII, p. 412. 



1912. Leiognathus edentulus, Bean and Weed, Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus. XLII, p. 604. 



Artedi's specific name, although the earliest, being polynomial in form is inadmissible. 

 Cuvier created the genus Equula 1 , taking Centrogaster equula of Linnaeus and Gmelin 2 

 (which is Scomber equula of Forskâl) as its type and named his newly created genus, as was 

 his wont, after the specific name of the type, at the same time supplying a new name for 

 the already named species by dropping the old and earliest specific name. Therefore the 

 name of the species should have been Equula equula, even if there were any justification 

 for the newly created Cuvierian generic name. Cuvier's objection to "Leiognathus " of Lacé- 

 pède was its etymological meaning, i. e., "toothless." Lacépède in separating the new genus 

 Leiognathus from the old genus "Scomber" meant to take out all those species which did not 

 possess any conspicuous teeth. 3 Cuvier and Valenciennes contended that as the group 

 thus taken out actually possessed teeth, though minute, the name Leiognathus was not only 

 inappropriate but also ineligible and therefore must go. 4 Thus Lacépède's generic name 

 was discarded and Cuvier, after raising the specific name of the first author (i.e., Forskâl) 

 to that of a genus, substituted the specific name caballa for equula of Forskâl and ensifera 

 for edentulus of Bloch, considering these two to be two distinct species and paying no 

 regard to the law of priority. Günther, though he remarked that he had no hesitation 5 in 

 considering the two species as identical, recorded them under different names as distinct 

 species. He, however, restored Bloch's name edentulus in place of ensifera, but left the 

 Cuvierian name caballa for equula of Forskâl. The argument against the earlier name 

 Leiognathus is no longer considered valid, hence the generic name Equula is ineligible. It is 

 regrettable that the familiar name of a well-known species must be altered. 6 



There are altogether thirteen specimens in the collection. The fish is found all over the 

 lake, including the outer channel, throughout the year. It is a permanent inhabitant, 

 probably breeding in the lake during the flood-season. 



1 Cuvier, Reg. Anim. (Ed. I), II, p. 323 (1817). 



2 Linnaeus and Gmelin, Sys. Nat. Ill, p. 1337 (1788). 



3 Lacépède, Hist. Nat. Pciss. IV, 449. 



4 Cuvier and Valenciennes, Hist. Nat. Poiss. X, pp. 60. 61, and 67. 



5 Günther, Cat. Fish. Brit. Mus. II, p. 499. 



6 Houttuyn in 1782 reported "Centrogaster argentatus" from Nagasaki. (Verh. Holland sehe Maatsch. Weelen. Haarlem 

 XX, pp. 311 — 346). As Houttuyn's descriptions represent the earliest record of Japanese fishes his names must have 

 precedence over all others when his descriptions can be identified. Jordan and Snyder in their "List of Japanese Fishes" 

 point out that it is identical with Equula nuchale of Temminck and Schlegel (Faun. Japonica, Poiss., p. 126, pi. lxvii, 

 fig. i), which is one of the commonest of Japanese fishes ; but the name should be Leiognathus argentatum (Proc. U. S. Nat. 

 Mus. XXIII (1901), p. 747) and the name should be restricted to Japanese species. Forskâl' s name is applicable to the 

 species from the Rea Sea and the Seas of India. 



