Part 122

May.

South of Australia 43° S. (122)

And those of the Indian Ocean:

January.

Gulf of Aden 12° N. (149)

March.

Geographe Bay 33° S. (150)

May.

Indian Ocean 2° N. (147)

September.

Straits of Malacca 3° N. (146) Indian Ocean 15° S.? (123)

Suppose that some individuals in the Atlantic migrate towards the south beyond the latitude of the Cape of Good Hope and get much farther than 20° eastern latitude, they will come into the Indian Ocean. I think that when these individuals returning to the north, find themselves checked by the continent of Asia, they will swim in any direction, and that perhaps most of them will find back the outlet round the Cape of Good Hope or south of Australia, so that in such cases individuals will be met with in the South Atlantic, or in the South Pacific, at times that one would not expect to find any.

10. NOMENCLATURE.

GESNER (p. 107) and PONTOPPIDAN (p. 132) believed that there were at least two species of the same genus. ALDROVANDUS, however, doubted of this, and thought that there was only one species (p. 110). Dr. HAMILTON was evidently of the same opinion (p. 126). RAFINESQUE SCHMALTZ at last believed that there were several species (p. 199).

In his Dissertation on Water-Snakes, Sea-Snakes and Sea-Serpents, (Nov. 1819) he gives his different species different names. Of the Massachusetts Sea-Serpent (his n^o. 1) he says:

“It is evidently a real sea-snake, belonging probably to the genus Pelamis, and I propose to call it Pelamis megophias. It might, however, be a peculiar genus; in that case the name of Megophias monstrosus might have been appropriated to it” (see p. 200).

Of Captain BROWN’S sea-serpent (his n^o. 2) he writes: “It had eight gills under the neck; which decidedly evinces that it is not a snake, but a new genus of fish! I shall call this new genus Octipos (meaning eight gills beneath). And its scientific name will be Octipos bicolor” (see n^o. 56).

Mr. W. LEE’S sea-serpent according to RAFINESQUE SCHMALTZ (n^o. 4 of his “Additions”) “appears to be the largest on record, and might well be called Pelamis monstrosus; but if there are other species of equal size, it must be called Pelamis chloronotis (see n^o. 30).

The author of the present volume proposed in Nov. 1881 to give it the name of Zeuglodon plesiosauroides (see p. 445).

It is one of the laws of Nomenclature that the oldest name of a species or genus has the priority, no matter whether the author wrote it right or wrong, and whether the author placed his species, or genus, in a genus, or family, or group, other than zoologists would do at present.

Consequently the oldest specific name of the sea-serpent is megophias, and this specific name must be kept. RAFINESQUE placed his species in the genus Pelamis. This genus, however, was established by DAUDIN, in 1802, for some real sea-snakes, and with some other genera it forms the family of Hydrophidae Sws. It must, therefore, be rejected.

RAFINESQUE himself doubting of the identity of the Great Sea-Serpent with the common small sea-snakes, proposes in that case the name of Megophias monstrosus. Here we have the oldest generic name for these animals, viz. Megophias. In my opinion, the only name to be given to the sea-serpent is that of

Megophias megophias (RAF.) OUD.

I know that such a double name will offend the eyes and ears of some zoologists. But it will not do to give a wrong name simply to please some zoologists; and it is here the question: by what name must these animals be called according to the law of nomenclature, and then I say:

Megophias megophias (RAF.) OUD.

and its synonyms are:

Pelamis megophias, RAF., Nov., 1819, (n^o. 1), Megophias monstrosus, RAF., Nov., 1819, (n^o. 1), Octipos bicolor, RAF., Nov., 1819, (n^o. 2), Pelamis monstrosus, RAF., Nov., 1819, (Add. n^o. 4), Pelamis chloronotis, RAF., Nov., 1819, (Add. n^o. 4), Zeuglodon plesiosauroides, OUD., Nov., 1881.

The name of Halsydrus Pontoppidani, proposed by Mr. PATRIC NEILL, for the “great sea-snake cast ashore on the isle of Stronsa” (Phil. Mag. Vol. 33, p. 90, Jan., 1809) can of course not be accepted as the scientific name of the sea-serpent, although it is older than Megophias megophias (RAF.) OUD. (See our Chapter on Would-be Sea-Serpents.)