NOTES ON FISHES FROM WESTERN AUSTRALIA — WAITE. 215 
We next turn up Richardson’s paper on the Ichthyology of the 
seas of China and Japan,* * * § and find that he recognised the generic 
identity of Scarodon with his own Hoplegnathus , and under H. 
punctatus mentions having seen, very cursorily, in the Museum 
at Fort Pitt, a spotted Hoplegnathus from Norfolk Island. As 
the only island of that name, according to the atlas and the 
gazetteer, is the dependency of New South Wales, it would seem 
as though this species should be credited to our fauna, but 
Richardson describes its habitat merely as the seas of Japan and 
China. In the work quoted, he, with doubtful judgment, coins a 
third name — H. maculosus , his type being a drawing only, at the 
same time he doubts its specific distinction from H. punctatus . 
In 1854, Bleeker raised the genus to family rank under the 
name Hoplegnathoidei ,f but I have not access to his paper ) he 
again mentions it in his Archipelago Indico.J Two years later, 
Richardson, who had apparently not seen Bleeker’s work, placed 
his Hoplegnathus as a genus^ under Chcetodontidm.§ The three 
valid species mentioned, are recorded by Gunther || in 1861, but 
it becomes evident that one paper on the subject had at that time 
been overlooked, of which more later. 
On referring to the Zoological Record for 1865, we readlf: — 
“ Hoplognathus. M. Guichenot states that Ichthyorhamphus 
(Casteln.) from the Cape of Good Hope is identical with this 
genus. Mem. Soc, 8c. Nat. Cherbourg, xi., p. 5. The same 
author refers it to the Scaroid fishes ; but its pharangeal bones 
are entirely separate, rather feeble, and armed with villiform 
teeth.” The work in which Guichenot published the observation 
is not accessible to me, and I am unable to find where Castelnau’s 
genus was described. It is omitted from the “Nomenclator 
Zoologicus v of Scudder, and on searching the Royal Society’s 
Catalogue such references as I can consult do not contain notice 
of the genus Ichthyorhamphus , so that I am unable to learn even 
the specific name applied by Castelnau. 
The following reference is supplied by the Zoological Record for 
1867 : — **“ Hoplognathus fasciatus (Kroy.) is described as Scaro- 
stoma insigne (g. et sp. n.) by Prof. Kner, Sitzgsber. Ak. Wiss. 
Wien, 1867, lvi., p. 715, fig. 3,” and the same subject is recorded 
in the Zoological Record for 1868, as follows! f: — “Prof. Kner also 
has recognised the identity of his Scarostoma with this genus (See 
* Richardson — Rep, Brit. Assoc., 1845, p. 247. 
f Bleeker — Yer. Akad. Wetensch. Amsterdam, i., 1854, Japan, p. 6. 
X Bleeker — Spec. Pise. Arch. Indico, 1859, p. 250. 
§ Richardson — Enoyc. Brit. (Ed. ix.), Ichth. xii., p. 303. 
|| Gunther — Brit. Mus. Cat. Fish.,iii., 1861, pp. 357-8. 
If Gunther — Zool. Record, 1865, Pisces, p. 184. 
** Gunther — Zool. Record, 1867, Pisces, p. 161. 
ft Gunther— Zool. Record, 1868, Pisces, p. 146. 
