106 
BULLETIN OF THE UNITED STATES FISH COMMISSION. 
In 1842 DeKay gave the generic name Uranidea to an American species {qui- 
escens— gracilis), congeneric with C. gohio. Evidently DeKay was unacquainted with 
(7. gobio, and regarded his Uranidea as a new type in the family. 
In 1850 Girard, recalling that the type of Coitus of Gaza, Artedi, and Cuvier was 
C. gohio, proposed to separate the genus Coitus as then understood into smaller 
genera, retaining the name Coitus for the “Ohabots’^of Cuvier, and giving to the 
“Chaboisseaux” the new name of Acanthocottus. 
Girard remarks: “Had the name of Coitus belonged to the marine species of the 
group, instead of being founded on the fresh-water C. gobio, the new name Acantho- 
cottus would have been unnecessary. In that case we might have called the fresh- 
water species Uranidea, and the marine ones Coitus, with equal propriety, although 
the original idea of the genus Uranidea was a mistake of the author.” (Girard, Mon. 
Cottoids, 1850, 9.) 
In 1863 Putnam remarks : 
“ We do not see the necessity of the name Acanthocottus, proposed by Girard for 
the marine species of the old genus Coitus, when DeKay, many years before, by giving 
the name of Uranidea to one of our fresh-water species, recognized the two genera. 
It may be that DeKay did not have the Coitus gobio in view when he proposed the 
name of Uranidea, but his U. quiescens is the American representative of the Coitus 
gobio of Europe; and, therefore, as he was the first to distinguish the two genera 
included under the name of CotUis, his name should be retained for the fluviatile 
species, and that of Coitus for the marine, called by Girard Acanthocottus. 
“If the principle adopted by Girard were followed it would involve the change of 
such a large number of generic names as to create the greatest confusion in nomen- 
clature.” (Bull. Mus. Comp. Zook, 1, 2, 1863.) 
Later American writers have adopted these views of Putnam, while European 
authoi’s, without exceptiou, have left the two groups together under the name of Coitus. 
It seems to the writer most natural to regard the two groups as separate genera. 
To decide which of these genera should be known as Coitus, we may now recapitu- 
late the evidence. 
(1) If we take ancient usage as our guide, the type of Coitus is C. gobio, and the 
scorpius group should stand as Acanthocottus, the earliest generic name applied by a 
binomial author. 
(2) If we take the first definite and explicit assignment of a type to Coitus 
(Cuvier, 1829, or Girard, 1850), we have the same result. 
In my opinion the view stated under (2) should be adopted, and Coitus should 
stand for Coitus gobio, and Acanthocottus for C. scorpius and its marine congeners. 
The following is an outline of the synonymy of the two groups : 
COTTUS (Artedi), Linnaeus. 
(Miller’s Tlinmbs ; Chabots.) 
Cottus Gaza, Rondelet, and of tbe ancients. 
<]Cottus Artedi, Genera Piscium, etc., 1738. 
Cottus Linnaeus, Systema Naturae, 1758, 264 (including diverse elements besides goMo, scorpius, etc.). 
Cottus Cuvier, Eegne Animal, ii, 1827 (restricted to tbe “Cbabots” {gobio, etc.) and tbe “Cba- 
boisseaux” {scorpius, etc.). 
