216 
RECORDS OF THE AUSTRALIAN MUSEUM. 
Zool. Record, iv., p. 161); but he still thinks that the fish described 
by him is a new species (Wiegm. Arch. 1868 in Troschel’s Bericht). 
[It is Hoplognathus fasciatus of Kroyer, not of Schlegel ; the 
name of the Japanese species may be changed to Hoplognathus 
Jcrusensternii.Y We do not possess the Vienna publication, so 
that further research in this direction is impossible. There is no 
reference to where Kroyer’s paper was published, but such is 
ultimately traced by Carus and Engelmann’s Bibliotheca Zoologica 
(1861, p. 1028); the reference being: — “ Oplegnathus fasciatus. in: 
Kroyer, naturhist. Tidsskr. N. R. Bd. i., 1845, p. 213-223,” a 
work to which again T cannot refer. In passing it may be noted 
that the Bibliotheca does not record Castelnau’s Ichthyorhamphus. 
I have no direct evidence as to where Kroyer’s type was 
obtained, but Gunther writes of the family Hoplognathidce * * * § : — 
“One genus only is known, Hoplognathus ) with four species from 
Australian, Japanese, and Peruvian coasts”: as we know the 
species representing the two former habitats, I presume Kroyer’s 
example was from Peru, and it is possible that II. woodwardi is 
identical with II. fasciatus from Peru, many types being common 
to Australia and South America. It is to be noticed that the 
Cape of Good Hope, supposed to be represented by Ichthyorham- 
phus, is not included in the distribution of the family. 
Although the Fauna Japonica, Pisces, bears on the title page 
the date 1850, the work was issued in parts, commencing 1844, 
in which year the decade containing 11 oplegnathus appeared. It 
thus antedated Kroyer’s paper, published in 1845, which was 
however not recorded by Giinther in his Catalogue, and this con- 
stitutes the omission previously referred to. t The changing of the 
name of the Japanese species was therefore not justified, as 
acknowledged later by using 11. fasciatus, according to priority.! 
Steindachner has redescribed the species, but unfortunately I am 
unable to consult his paper.J 
In changing the spelling of Hoplognathus to Hoplognathus , 
Giinther had apparently assumed that the derivation of the prefix 
was o7tA,ov = arm A, whereas Richardson expressly states that his 
derivation was 07r\rj = UNGULA.§ 
Further, the name Hoplognathus is inadmissible for this genus, 
having been used in 1819 by MacLeay, and again by Chadoir in 
1835, for different genera of Coleoptera. It was subsequently 
(1844) used by Burmeister, also in Coleoptera. 
* Gunther — Study of Fishes, 1880, p. 410. 
t Giinther — Challenger Beports, Zool., i.. Shore Fishes, 1880, p. 64. 
X Steindachner — Sitz. K, Akad. Wiss. Wien., cii., 1893, p. 222. 
§ Bichardson — Trans. Zool. Soc., 1849, iii., p. 144. 
