CONCLUSIONS. 5A5 
lantic, or in the South Pacific, at times that one would not expect 
to find any. 
10. NOMENCLATURE. 
GzsneR (p. 107) and Pontopripan (p. 132) believed that there 
were at least two species of the same genus. ALDROVANDUS, howe- 
ver, doubted of this, and thought that there was-only one species 
(p. 110). Dr. Hamiriron was evidently of the same opinion (p. 126). 
RaFINESQUE ScuMALtz at last believed that there were several species 
(p. 199). 
In his Dissertation on Water-Snakes, Sea-Snakes and Sea-Ser- 
pents, (Nov. 1819) he gives his different species different names. 
Of the Massachusett’s Sea-Serpent (his n°. 1) he says: 
“It is evidently a real sea-snake, belonging probably to the genus 
Pelamis, and I propose to call it Pe/amis megophas. It might, 
however, be a peculiar genus; in that case the name of Megophas 
monstrosus might have been appropriated to it’ (see p. 200). 
Of Captain Brown’s sea-serpent (his n°. 2) he writes: “It had 
eight gills under the neck; which decidedly evinces that it is not 
a snake, but a new genus of fish! I shall call this new genus 
Octipos (meaning eight gills beneath). And its scientific name will 
be Octipos bicolor’ (see n°. 56). 
Mr. W. Ler’s sea-serpent according to Rarinrsauk ScHMALTZ 
(n°. 4 of his “Additions”’) “appears to be the largest on record , 
and might well be called Pelamis monstrosus; but if there are other 
species of equal size, it must be called Pelamis chloronotis (see n°. 30). 
The author of the present volume proposed in Noy. 1881 to give 
it the name of Zeuglodon plesiosauroides (see p. 445). 
It is one of the laws of Nomenclature that the oldest name of 
a species or genus has the priority, no matter whether the author 
wrote it right or wrong, and whether the author placed his spe- 
cles, or genus, in a genus, or family, or group, other than zoo- 
logists would do at present. 
Consequently the oldest specific name of the sea-serpent is mego- 
pas, and this specific name must be kept. Raringsaur placed 
his species in the genus Pe/amis. ‘This genus, however, was estab- 
lished by Davupin, in 1802, for some real sea-snakes, and with 
some other genera it forms the family of Mydrophdae Sws. It 
must, therefore, be rejected. 
Rarinzsavuet himself doubting of the identity of the Great Sea- 
35 
