NOTES ICHTYOLOGIQUES ON THE AUTHORSHIP, IDENTITY AND be determined by re-examination of original TAXONOMIC POSITION OF PLEURONEC- published literature, whereas the question of TES COMMERSONNII LACEPÈDE, 1802 identity of this species can only be resolved by (PLEURONECTIFORMES, SOLEIDAE). referring to the unpublished illustration of this Thomas A. MUNROE, National Marine Fishe- species prepared for Commerson, which provides ries Service National Systematics Laboratory, new information that permits the correct taxo- National Museum of Natural History, Washington, nomic placement for this nominal species. DC 20560-0153, USA. [[email protected]. Date of authorship, and authorship itself, edu] & Martine DESOUTTER, Laboratoire for Lacepède’s nominal species, Pleuronectes d’Ichtyologie générale et appliquée, Muséum commersonnii, have been the subject of alternative national d’Histoire naturelle, 43 rue Cuvier, 75231 views by subsequent investigators. Contributing to Paris cedex 05, FRANCE. [[email protected]] confusion surrounding the authorship and taxo- nomic placement of this nominal species are the RÉSUMÉ.!-!Sur la paternité, l’identité et la lack of type specimens and inconsistencies be- position taxinomique de Pleuronectes commer- tween the original description and the published sonnii Lacepède, 1802 (Pleuronectiformes, Solei- illustration of the species. This confusion is dae). largely due to the fact that the illustration of this Les auteurs discutent et démontrent la va- species published one year prior (Lacepède, 1801) lidité taxinomique de l’espèce décrite par Lace- to the description (Lacepède, 1802) was labelled pède, en 1802, sous le nom de Pleuronectes with a vernacular name, which was incorrectly commersonnii. Cette espèce appartient bien à la interpreted as a scientific binomial by some famille des Soleidae et est maintenant placée dans subsequent authors (e.g., Cantor, 1849; Günther, le genre Synaptura. 1862). Cuvier (1817) attributed authorship of the species to Lacepède (1801), but then in the same Key!words.!-!Soleidae - Pleuronectes commerson- paper questioned whether this name should be nii - Taxonomy. considered a nomen nudum. Swainson (1839) attributed authorship of this flatfish species to Russell (as Brachirus commersonni) without Lacepède figured (1801: plate 12, fig.!2) further comment. Cantor (1849) and Günther and described (1802) a nominal species of flatfish, (1862) both attributed authorship to Lacepède, but Pleuronectes commersonnii, based entirely on considered the correct scientific name of the information originally contained in an unpublished species to be based on the name “Le Pleuronecte illustration and manuscript of Commerson (MS Commersonnien” accompanying the illustration of 528, XXV.181; “Bibliothèque centrale, Muséum this nominal species published in 1801, rather than national d’Histoire naturelle, Paris”). Since the Pleuronectes commersonnii applied in the text publication of Lacepède’s work, considerable description of 1802. In his revision of the soleid confusion has ensued concerning the authorship genus Synaptura, Chabanaud (1938) also doubted and date of authorship of this nominal species, as that Lacepède actually provided a binomial for well as its identity and taxonomic placement. The this nominal species and attributed authorship of name proposed by Lacepède has most frequently the species to Swainson (1839). Subsequent works been applied to a commonly occurring species of (Menon and Joglekar, 1978) disagreed with soleid flatfish (usually Synaptura commersonnii) Chabanaud (1938), and instead, referred of some commercial importance in the Indian Lacepède’s species either to the soleid genera Ocean (Menon and Joklekar, 1978). No type Brachirus, or more often, Synaptura. Fricke specimen of this nominal species has been found (1999) recently concluded that two species were (the specimen illustrated is assumed lost), nor described by Lacepède (1801, 1802). have we any reason to believe that one is still Establishing the appropriate date and extant. Given the long history of association of authorship for this nominal species requires Lacepède’s name with this commercially impor- evaluating the name associated with the illustra- tant flatfish, the uncertainty associated with this tion published in Lacepède (1801). The illustration name needs to be resolved in order to stabilize (originally prepared for Commerson) was accom- nomenclature for this species. Authorship and date panied in Lacepède (1801) only by the vernacular of authorship of Pleuronectes commersonnii can name “Le Pleuronecte Commersonnien.” The Cybium 2001, 25(3): 273-277. 274 MUNROE & DESOUTTER name “Le Pleuronecte Commersonnien” in in the original description has been the major Lacepède (1801) was incorrectly interpreted as a factor contributing to the confusion regarding the latinized binominal for the species by some subse- identity of this nominal species. The figure pub- quent authors (e.g., Cantor, 1849; Günther, 1862). lished in Lacepède (1801) depicts a sinistral Rather, it is a vernacular name constructed in a flatfish with soleid features (Fig.!1a). Lacepède fashion consistent with other vernacular names for (1802) placed this species in his all-encompassing their respective species. Thus, “Le Pleuronecte family Pleuronectidae (sensu Linnaeus) among the Commersonnien” does not constitute a scientific sinistral pleuronectiform species. The written name for this nominal species. This conclusion account (Lacepède, 1802) also describes a sinistral agrees with those of Chabanaud (1938) and Esch- species (as did the account in Commerson’s meyer (1998) that the date of authorship for unpublished manuscript), but based on the infor- Pleuronectes commersonnii Lacepède does not mation contained therein, the taxonomic affinity derive from the illustration published in 1801. of this species among sinistral flatfishes can not be Formal description of this nominal spe- ascertained (see also Chabanaud, 1937). cies occurs in Lacepède (1802: 656-657), which Cuvier (1817) first recognised the pro- includes a written description and latinized bino- blem of discrepancies between the written descrip- mial (Pleuronectes commersonnii) for the nominal tion and the fish figured in Lacepède (1802: 656- species represented in the drawing published in 657 and 1801, pl.!12, fig.!2, respectively). He 1801 as evidenced by cross-referencing of the suggested that perhaps at least two species were vernacular name “Le Pleuronecte Commerson- included in the original description. Nevertheless, nien” between the two publications. This finding after noting these discrepancies, Cuvier, perhaps is contrary to the synonymy presented in Cha- more influenced by the features of the illustrated banaud (1938), which did not consider Lacepède fish than by the written description, placed Pleu- (1802) as the author of Pleuronectes commerson- ronectes commersonnii Lacepède into his subdivi- nii. sion of flatfishes containing the soles. Swainson The identity and taxonomic placement of (1839) and Cantor (1849), also placed this nomi- Lacepède’s nominal species has long been the nal species among soleid fishes (dextral flatfishes, subject of differing opinions. While a majority of e.g., with eyes on the right side of the body). Since previous authors beginning with Cuvier (1817) Cantor (1849), there has been long-standing considered Pleuronectes commersonnii as a valid assignment of this species in the soleid genus soleid flatfish species (flatfish species with dextral Synaptura (see synonymy in Chababaud, 1938). orientation), other authors have questioned the Günther (1862), although expressing some uncer- exact identity and taxonomic placement of tainty about the authorship of the species, placed it Lacepède’s species (Chabanaud, 1937; Esch- in the soleid genus Synaptura. Chabanaud (1937), meyer, 1998; Fricke, 1999). Re-examination of after lengthy discussion of the confusion surroun- Lacepède (1801, 1802) and the unpublished ding the name Pleuronectes commersonnii, was Commerson manuscript reveals that Lacepède unable to reconcile placing this nominal species, described this nominal species based entirely on based on a sinistral specimen, into the Soleidae. information originally contained in the unpu- After careful consideration and elimination of the blished illustration and manuscript of Commerson possibility that the specimen Lacepède described (MS 528, XXV.181). No evidence exists to indi- may have been a reversed soleid, and after consi- cate that Lacepède either actually examined the dering other alternative taxonomic placements, specimen illustrated for Commerson, or any other Chabanaud (1937) concluded that identification specimen of this nominal species while preparing and correct taxonomic placement of Lacepède’s his description of Pleuronectes commersonnii. species was unresolvable until further information Furthermore, no type specimens were designated became available. Nonetheless, in the next year, by Lacepède and no potential types are known to Chabanaud (1938) considered this species as a exist for this nominal species (Chabanaud, 1937), member of the soleid genus Synaptura (although a situation that precludes determination of the attributing authorship to Swainson). Although identity and taxonomic placement of this species detailed, Chabanaud’s (1937, 1938) discussions by direct examination of specimens. essentially repeated arguments presented by The inconsistency between the informa- Cuvier (1817) regarding discrepancies between