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.)
Nor can there be any question to consider the name of _Hydrarchos
Sillimanni_, proposed by Dr KOCH for his so-called fossil sea-serpent,
as a synonym of _Megophias megophias_ (RAF.) OUD. (See our Chapter on
Hoaxes).