278 Scientific InUlHgenetL 



ohms" has characterised the genus Lcpomis and divided it into two a 

 genera, Aplitet and Dioplitft, giving at the same time, to each of i 

 ipeciea,the generic name of Lepomi* — Aplikst and DiopUtes having b| 

 separated in consequence of an erroi of observation, and not differ! 

 from each other, cannot be retained — Lepomit must, be therefore used, 

 it should have been for one of the genera or subgenera, if both had bejj 

 established on true principles. Dioplites is restricted by Dr. Girard to 1 

 species without teeth on the tongue. 



The Cuvieran section of " Percoids a Joues cuuirasses" is retained as 

 "tribe" under the name of Cataphracti, and is divided into three fair 

 lies, Heterolepidce, Cottida, Scorpcenidce. Perhaps the families so indic| 

 ted are valid, but the characters given to them fire vague and will requi 

 revision after a comparative study of the foreign genera. 



The family called lleterolepidre had been previously named by S\vair| 

 son Chiridce, and that name should have been retained, as well on accoui 

 of its priority, as its consonance with the terminology of the oth 

 families. 



In the family of Cottoids, the species are distributed into ten genera, i 

 of which appear to be founded on good characters, but the names of some' 

 of which are objectionable. 



Among the Salmonoids, the three genera of Valenciennes, Salmo, Fa- 

 rio and Salar are accepted, but we notice that Dr. Girard has named 

 all the new species he describes as belonging to those genera, Salmo— 

 " Grd. MSS" in the synonymical lists of the species. 



In the family of Clupeoids, the modifications of Valenciennes have not 

 been adopted, and the genus Hyodon is interposed between Melttta V a l. 

 and Engraulis. 



The genus Anarrhichthys of Ayres is adopted; its only species is called 

 Anarrhichthys felis Girard. To this name we desire to draw the atten- 

 tion of our readers, as an important question of nomenclature is involved. 

 In the "Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadel- 

 phia" for 1854, Dr. Girard mentions a fish which he calls Anarrhicas 

 felis, and observes that two large specimens were received in such a preca- 

 rious state of preservation that there was no probability of keeping them, 

 and that having mislaid the notes, no diagnosis could be given. 



Subsequently, Mi-. Ayres, in the Proceedings of the Californian Acade- 

 my, gave a full description of a species which he referred to a new genus 

 and called Anarrhichthys ocellatus, which was chiefly distinguished from 

 Anarrhicas by its anguilliform body, and the union of the dorsal, caudal, 

 and anal fins. This is the species that Dr. Girard has claimed as his own 

 Anarrhicas felis. 



To this reference we would remark that as Anarrhicas has by all 

 modern naturalists, been restricted to such species as had the dorsal and 

 anal fins separated from the caudal, we would infer that any species 

 placed without comment in the genus would have those characters. Dr. 

 Girard's name of Anarrhicas felit was not only without any description 

 whatever and therefore not established, but a statement by implication 

 ffas made that the species possessed the stout body and fins of Anarrhicas, 

 and was consequently in direct opposition to the characters of Anarrhich- 

 thys ocellalus. Such being the case, Dr. Girard's name cannot be adopted, 

 and that of Ayres must be retaiued. 



