ON SOME CHANGES IN THE NAMES, GENERIC 
AND SPECIFIC, OF CERTAIN FOSSIL FISHES. 
Oi Po HAY, 
THE writer desires to call the attention of paleontologists to 
the following changes, which it seems to be necessary to make 
in the nomenclature of certain fossil fishes. Nearly all these 
changes pertain to North American species or to genera repre- 
sented in North America. While there may appear to be a 
considerable number of names which have been replaced by 
others, there are in reality few, when compared with the large 
number of species whose history has been studied. While it is 
to be regretted that old and well-known names have to be cast 
aside and new or unfamiliar ones substituted, the writer believes 
that it is better to reform nomenclature as soon as errors are 
discovered than, by repeating them, to make more difficult of 
accomplishment what must be done at some time by some- 
body. 
In 18751 St. John and Worthen described a species of Cladodus 
which they called C. carinatus. The same name was employed 
in 1889 by Dr. Newberry? for an entirely distinct species. 
This requires, therefore, a new name, which may be C. coniger. 
In 1894 Professor E. W. Claypole® described a supposed 
species of Cladodus which he designated as C. (?) magnificus. 
The name is, however, preoccupied, Tuomey having in 18584 
described a C. magnificus from the state of Alabama. The 
former species may be named C. claypolet, in honor of the 
describer. 
In 18915 Professor Cope described a fossil tooth which he 
called Hybodus regularis. However, the specific name is pre- 
1 Geol. Surv. Til., vol. vi, p. 279, Pl. IV, Figs. 6 and 7. 
2 Paleoz. Fishes N. A., p. 103. 
8 Amer. Geol., vol. xiv, p. 137, Pl. V. 
4 Second Report Geol. Alabama, p. 39. 
5 Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus., vol. xiv, p. 448, Pl. XXVIII, Fig. 2. 
783 
