658 



SCIENCE. 



[X. S. Vol. XXI. Xo. 539. 



justified by history or not. A number of the 

 names adopted by him would be discarded by 

 those who were willing to obey the codes of 

 Tiomenclature formed by naturalists whose 

 large experience had convinced them of the 

 necessity of adherence to rules. The per- 

 sistent violator of such rules places an ob- 

 stacle in the path of the zoological student 

 and helps to prolong unhappy discord and diffi- 

 culty. Too often, however, he assumes the 

 attitude of the wolf to the lamb! Examples 

 of family names wrongly used are IJotidanidse 

 (for Hexanchidse), Scylliidse (for Scylliorhin- 

 idse), Spinacidse (for Squalidse) and Trygon- 

 idae (for Dasybatida?). The Linnsean name 

 Squalus is not used at all and the name 

 Lcemargus, though at the same time much 

 younger than Somniosus, and long preoc- 

 cupied, is still retained. Of course it may be 

 said nomenclature is of trivial importance and 

 too much has been made of it, but if so why 

 should those who regard it from such a stand- 

 point be obstinate in ignoring rules when ad- 

 herence need not atfect them while it does 

 others ? 



There is, too, sometimes inconsistency be- 

 tween Professor Bridge's definition of a group 

 and its contents. The family Lamnidse is said 

 to be composed of " large stout-bodied sharks 

 with two dorsal fins, the first just behind the 

 pectoral fins, the second, which is small, op- 

 posite the small anal fin ; * * * . Tail with a 

 prominent lateral keel on each side. * * * 

 Branchial clefts very wide." It would thus 

 appear as if Professor Bridge had adopted the 

 family with the same limits that had been 

 given to it by Miiller and Henle and American 

 ichthyologists. On looking at its contents, 

 however, it appears that the genera for which 

 the families Odontaspididffi (or Carchariidse) 

 and Alopiidae have been framed are referred to 

 it. Yet Odontnspis certainly has not the first 

 dorsal ' just behind the pectoral fins,' nor the 

 second or anal 'small' (but unusually large), 

 nor ' the tail with a prominent lateral keel.' 

 Nor does Alopecias (properly Alopias) agree 

 better. That genus has not the first dorsal 

 ' just behind the pectoral fins,' nor ' the tail 

 with a prominent lateral keel,' nor the 

 'branchial ck-fts very wide.' As Profc sor 



Bridge had recognized the importance of the 

 differentiating characters in the diagnosis of 

 the Lamnidse, he should have recognized the 

 families Odontaspididie (or Carchariidse) and 

 Alopiidae by name. 



A word may be in place as to Alopias and 

 Alopecias. It is true that Alopecias was the 

 ancient Greek name of the thresher, but 

 Rafinesque thought it was too long and pre- 

 ferred to give a new name to the genus (as 

 he had a perfect right to do) ; he selected 

 Alopias, which can be perfectly and legiti- 

 mately formed from aXu-nc and the suffix -ias. 

 ]\Iiiller and Henle first substituted Alopecias, 

 but in their great work reverted to Alopias: 

 Alopias it should be. 



Another notable case of inconsistency is 

 manifest in the treatment of the family 

 ' Scylliidae ' (Scylliorhinidae). That family is 

 defined as being ' oviparous,' having ' egg- 

 cases large, quadrate,' etc. (p. 446). To it 

 are referred ' Chiloscyllium/ ' a widely dis- 

 tributed genus,' and Crossorliinus (Orecto- 

 lohus). Yet both of those genera were shown 

 in 1901, by Edgar E. Waite, to be ovovivi- 

 parous, like most selachians, and referred to 

 distinct families, the Hemiscylliidae and 

 Orectolobidae. 



vin. 



The non-telcost ' Teleostomi ' are disposed 

 of in a somewhat peculiar manner. In the 

 group are included the ' order I. Cross- 

 opterygii ' (p. 476), 'order II. Chondrostei 

 (Acipenseroidei)' (p. 485), and 'order HI. 

 Ilolostei (Lepidosteoidei)' (p. 495) and from 

 it are excluded the ' subclass III. Dipneusti 

 (Dipnoi)' (p. 505). It appears to be more 

 than problematical whether such an arrange- 

 ment is the best expression of the present 

 state of our knowledge of the fishes involved. 

 The relationship of the primitive Cross- 

 opterygii and Dipneusti was so close that 

 they were confounded in one and the same 

 group (suborder Ganoidei crossopterygidse) 

 by Huxley, and the gap between the two ap- 

 pears to be much less than that between the 

 Crossopterygii and the nearest related of the 

 existing fishes. Eurther dissent need not be 

 expressed here. It may be recalled, however, 

 because the discovery is so recent, that George 



