BULLETIN OF THE UNITED STATES FISH COMMISSION. 437 
Genus V.— ALBACORA. 
Thynnus Cuvier, Rfcgne Anim., 313, 1817 (thynnus) ; (not of Fabricius, a genus of 
butterflies). 
Orcynus Cuvier, Regne Anim., 314, 1817 ( alalonga ) ; (not of Rafinesque (1815), v/bich 
is Scombroides, Lac^pede.) 
Orycnus Gill., Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila., 125, 1862 ( alalonga ; misprint for 
Orcynus). 
Orcynus Cooper, Proc. Cal. Ac. Nat. Sci., 1863/ 77 {alalonga). 
Orycnus Cooper, 1. c. (thynnus). 
Albacora Jordan, Manual of Vertebrates, edition v, 1889 (thynnus). 
Germo Jordan, Proc. Ac. Nat- Sci. Phila., 1888 (alalonga). 
Type: Scomber thynnus Linnaeus. 
Etymology : Albacora, the Portuguese name, said to be from bacora , 
a little pig, a Moorish word, preceded by the article al. 
This genus consists of probably but two species, one of them the 
largest of all the bony fishes, the other similar in technical respects, but 
quite different in general appearance, and certainly to be placed in a 
different subgenus. The early generic names applied to this group 
Orcynus and Thynnus are both preoccupied. We have therefore adopted 
the name Albacora lately proposed by Dr. Jordan. 
In a recent paper on u the proper generic name of the Tunny and 
Albicore” (Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus. 1888, 319), Dr. Gill proposes to substi- 
tute the name Orycnus , of' Cooper, for Albacora , as the generic name 
both of the Tunny and the long -finned Albacore. 
It seems to us that this undesirable name should be set aside. The 
name Orycnus was first used by Dr. Gill, in 1862. It was due to a 
misreading of Cuvier’s name, Orcynus , and it should be placed in the 
category of emendations of that name. If the name itself is preoccupied, 
erroneous or variant spellings of it, due to misprints, misreadings 
or purism ought to be preoccupied also. Orcynus had been previously 
used when Cuvier gave it as the name of the long-finned Tunnies. To 
spell it Orycnus does not save it. 
Butin 1863 the name “ Orycnus ” was, in the words of Gill, “spe- 
cifically and with malice prepense resurrected and proposed for retention 
by Cooper.” Cooper, however, proposed to use it for a group typified 
by the Tunny (thynnus), and not for the alalonga , for which he retained 
the name of Orcynus , given it by Cuvier. 
The name Orycnus Cooper, it seems to us, is preoccupied by its pre- 
vious use for another genus, or subgenus, by Gill. It is therefore 
ineligible. In other words, a generic name originating in a misprint of 
a well-known name can not be later used as a name of another genus. 
That the two genera are now generally merged into one does not 
specially affect the case. Each generic name has its own typical 
species, and the two species should be placed in different subgenera 
at least. 
It may be urged that the argument for rejection of the name Orycnus 
is based on a trifling technicality. This may be true, but it is true of 
