•

*v

H|HI|HH|jm™
Hrara&ram^^Iiwi

fHg^BS^fifflBMfMStfffiB

iig of

Name of Book and Volume,

Division ....
Range
Shelf.....
Received

187^

SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS.

247

ARRANGEMENT

OF THE

FAMILIES OF FISHES,

CLASSES PISCES, MARSIPOBRANCHII, AND
LEPTOCABDII.

PKEPAKED FOB THE SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION

BY

THEODOKE GILL, M.D., Ph.D.

WASHINGTON:
PUBLISHED BY THE SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION.

NOVEMBER, 1S72.

ADVERTISEMENT.

THE following list of families of Fishes has been prepared by Dr.
THEODORE GILL, at the request of the Smithsonian Insfitution, to serve
as a basis for the arrangement of the collection of Fishes of the National
Museum ; and, as frequent applications for such a list have been received
by the Institution, it has been thought advisable to publish it for more
extended use. In provisionally adopting this system for the purpose men
tioned, the Institution is not to be considered as committed to it, nor as
accountable for any of the hypothetical views upon which it may be based.

JOSEPH HEXRY,

Secretary, S. L
SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION,

WASHINGTON, October, 1872.

(Hi)

CONTENTS.

PAGE

I. INTRODUCTION ............ vii

Objects ............. vii

Status of Ichthyology viii

Classification ............ viii

Classes (Pisces, Marsipobranchii, Leptocardii) . . . . . viii

Sub-Classes of Pisces ix

Orders of Pisces ........... xi

Characteristics and sequences of Primary Groups xix

Leptocardians ............ xix

Marsipobranchiates ........... xix

Pisces ............. xx

Elasmobranchiates ........... xx

Ganoidei ............. xxii

Teleost series ... ^ ......... xxxvi

Genetic relations and Sequences . . . . . . . . xiii

Excursus on the Shoulder Girdle of Fishes ...... xiii

Excursus on the Pectoral Limb ......... xxviii

On the terms "High" and "Low" xxxiii

Families ............. xliv

Acknowledgments ........... xlv

II. FAMILIES OP FISHES (including references to Introduction).

Class Pisces (1-240) xx

Series Teleostomi s. Branchiata (1-214) 1

Sub-Class Teleostei (1-207) xxxvi 1

Order Plectognathi (1-6) xl 1

Sub-Order Gymnodontes (1-3) 1

Sub-Order Ostracodermi (4) ..... 1

Sub-Order Sclerodermi (5-6) 1

Order Lophobranchii (7-9) xxxix ..... 2

Sub-Order Syngnathi (7-8) 2

Sub-Order Solenostomi (9) 2

Order Pediculati (10-13) xli 2

Order Hemibranchii (133-138) xxxix .... 13

Order TeleocepJiali (14-180) xxxvi 2

Sub-Order Heterosomata (14-15) .... 2

Sub-Order Anacanthini s. Jugulares (17-30) . . 3

Sub-Order Acanthopteri (31-129) .... 4

Sub-Order Percesoces (130-132) 13

Sub-Order Synentoguathi (139-140) .... 14

(v)

VI

Sub-Order Haplomi (141-144) 14

Sub-Order Isospondyli (145-173) .... 15

Sub-Order Eventognatlii (174-178) . . . . 17

Sub-Order Gymnonoti (179-180) .... 18

Order Scyphophori (181-182) xxxviii .... 18

Order Nematognathi (183-192) xxxviii .... 18

Order Apodes (193-204) xxxviii 10

Sub-Order Ichthyocephali (193) 19

Sub-Order Holostomi (194-195) 20

Sub-Order Enchelycephali (196-198) .... 20

Sub-Order Colocephali (199) 20

.Order Opisthomi (205-206) xxxix 21

Sub-Class Ganoidei (208-214) ix, xxii 21

Super-Order Hyoganoidei (208-209) xxxi ... 21

Order Cycloganoidei (208) 21

Order Rhoinboganoidei (209) 21

Super-Order Chondroganoidei (210-211) xxx ... 21

Order Chondrostei (210-211) 21

Order Selachostomi (211) 21

Super-Order Brachioganoidei (212) xxx .... 22

Order Crossopterygia (212) 22

Super-Order Dipnoi (213-214) xxx 22

Order Sirenoidei (213-214) 22

Series and Sub-Class Elasmobranchii (215-240) xx ... 22

Super-Order Cliimaerae (215) xx ..... 22

Order Holocephali (215) 22

Super-Order Plagiostomi (216-240) xx 22

Order Raiae (216-223) 22

Sub-Order Masticura (216-218) .... 22

Sub-Order Pachyura (219-223) .... 23

Order Squall (224-240) 23

Sub-Order Rhinae (224) 23

Sub-Order Galei (225-240) 23

Class Marsipobranchii (241-243) xix 24

Order Hyperoartii (241) 24

Order Hyperotreti (242-243) 25

Class Leptocardii (244) xix 25

Order Cirrostomi (244) 25

III. BIBLIOGRAPHY ........... 27

IV. INDEX ............. 47

INTRODUCTION.

OBJECTS.

A LIST of the families of fishes having long been urgently needed for the
re-arrangement of the. extensive collections of those animals in the Smith
sonian Institution, the following has been drawn up. The author has long
delayed its publication in order to continue his investigations and extend
them into some more of the many doubtful questions that still involve
ichthyology, but as such considerations would cause an indefinite post
ponement of publication, and as the list itself is desirable as a starting-
point for renewed investigation, and is, of course, more available in a
printed form than in manuscript, it is now printed ; being printed, its
publication has been deemed advisable as it may supply to others the
want that has been experienced by the Smithsonian Institution. That
it will stand the test of time as to many details is not to be expected.

STATUS OF ICHTHYOLOGY.

Studies in ichthyology have, for the most part, been directed to the ex
ternal organization, and the characters of all but the highest groups have
been chiefly derived from features visible from the exterior, and modifica
tions of single organs whose co-ordinations with other modifications, and
consequently taxonomic values, have not been verified, If a system
among fishes thus established has proved to be more true to nature than
analogous ones would be among the mammals, birds, or reptiles, it is
because so many of the elements of the skeleton, such as the jaws, oper-
cular bones, suborbitals, scapulars, branchiostegal bones, and rays are
more or less exposed to view, and the modifications more or less noted, or,
when concealed, the contrast taken cognizance of. A classification based
on superficial features in the fishes is thus, to a considerable degree, the
expression of skeletal modifications, which are themselves the co-ordinates,
as experience has shown, of others. For though the characters derived there-

( vii )

viii

from may not always be actually taken cognizance of in the diagnoses of the
groups, they more or less influence the adoption of groups characterized by
modifications of such parts. But it is only within certain limits that these
modifications are indicative of affinity ; often, for example, only recalling
ordinal relations determined by the number of the bones and their devel
opment. If, in many other cases, the nearer relations of forms have been
correctly inferred, it is rather from the tact which practice confers on the
student and the suggestions furnished by modifications which may be of
slight moment apparently, but which, on account of eccentricity or other
cause, strike the observer and often yield true clews to affinities. It is
logically, although the premises might be strenuously disavowed, the result
of a quasi-adoption of the doctrine of evolution, and the assumption that
certain characteristics peculiar to and common (but perhaps only in part)
to certain forms, especially when non-adaptive, are indicative of community
of origin, and therefore of immediate affinity. Such combinations are
often indefinable at first, but are frequently justified finally on a complete
study of the anatomy. But those combinations, when not definable, cannot
be considered as established, and are deservedly open to suspicion. The
author for many years has been collecting the skeletons and especially the
skulls of fishes, and their study has assured him of the affinities of many
forms whose relations would otherwise have been very doubtful. He has
meanwhile been anticipated in the announcement of certain of the results
of his studies by Prof. Cope, who has been fortunate in being able to
avail himself of the largest collection of skeletons of fishes known to exist.

CLASSIFICATION.

At a future time the views of the author respecting the principles of
classification and their application to the fishes will be published in detail.

At present, it need only be stated that he entirely concurs with Prof.
Cope in the view that under the general term " Fishes," three perfectly
distinct classes (PISCES, MARSIPOBRANCHII, and LEPTOCARDII) are con
founded, and he is inclined to agree with Prof. Hackel in the recognition
of even wider and certainly more obvious gaps between the typical fishes
and the two inferior classes than between any other contiguous classes of
vertebrates, but he cannot, with the latter naturalist, admit the title of the
Dipnoi to classical rank. As he urged in 18G1,1 the Dipnoi and Polyp-
terids (Crossopterygia, Huxley) exhibit so many characters in common
that they cannot be very widely separated, and are not even entitled to
subclassical distinction.

1 GILL (Theodore Nicholas). Catalogue of the Fishes of the Eastern Coast of North
America, .... [Philadelphia, The Academy of Natural Sciences, 13C1,] pp. 12-20.

ix

CLASSES.

The classes thus recognized may be distinguished as follows, the char
acters used, however, being supplemented by many others: —

I. Skull more or less developed, with the notochord not continued forwards beyond

the pituitary body. Brain differentiated and distinctly developed. Heart
developed and divided at least into an auricle and ventricle.

A. Skull well developed, and with a lower jaw. Paired fins developed (some

times absent through atrophy) ; and with a shoulder girdle1 (iyriform or
furcula- shaped, curved forwards and with its respective sides connected
below2), and with pelvic elements. Gills not purse-shaped.

PISCES.

B. Skull imperfectly developed and with no lower jaw. Paired fins unde

veloped, with no shoulder girdle nor pelvic elements. Gills purse-shaped.

MARSIPOBBANCHII.

II. Skull undeveloped, with the notochord persistent and extending to the anterior

end of the head. Brain not distinctly differentiated. Heart none.

LEPTOCABDII.

SUBCLASSES OF PISCES.

The most diverse views have been urged within the last few years in re
gard to the combination into major groups or subclasses of the orders of
the true fishes, Profs. Kner,3 Owen,* Liitken,5 and Cope8 on the one hand
combining the Teleosts and Ganoids into one group or more closely ap-

1 The shoulder girdle of the Elasmobranchiates appears to be homologous with the
paraglenal or coracoid elements (vide postea) of the specalized fishes, the proscapula
of the latter having been apparently first developed by exostosis in the Ganoids, and
finally become preponderant while the paraglenal became proportionately reduced.

2 This character distinguishes the class Pisces from the Batrachia.

3 KNER (Rudolph). Betrachtungen fiber die Ganoiden, als natiirliche Ordnung.

• . • . <Sitzungsberichte der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften. —

Mathematisch— Naturwisseuschaftliche Classe, b. 54,1. abth., 1866,pp. 519-536.

Prof. Kner concludes with the expression of belief that the Ganoids do not form a

homogeneous group, and should not, therefore, be retained in the system, and that,

far from being an improvement, the introduction of the group was a hindrance to

the progress of Ichthyology.

4 OWEN (Richard). On the Anatomy of Vertebrates, v. I, 1866, p. 7; also, v. Ill,

1868, p. 854 (Zoological Index).

The fishes (Pisces) are divided (in v. I.) into (1) Subclass I.. DERMOPTERI (includ
ing Pharyngobrauchii and Marsipobranchii) ; (2) Subclass II. TELEOSTOMI ; (3) Sub
class III. PLAGIOSTOMI ; (4) Subclass IV. DIPNOA : Subclass V. MONOPNOA is equivalent
to the class REPTILIA elsewhere (p. 6) admitted by him.

In the Zoological Index, the author reverses the sequence, and designates the
"DIPNOI" as a simple order (order Protopteri), placing it at the head of the class
Pisces.

6 LiJTKEM (Christian). Prof. Kner on the Classification of the Ganoids

<The Geological Magazine (London), v. 5, 1863.

proximating them, while, on the other hand, Dr. Giinther1 has contended
for the union of the Ganoids, Dipnoans, and Elasmobranchiates into one
subclass, for which he has proposed the name PALAEICHTHYES.

Om Ganoidernes Begrsendsning og Inddeling, .... < Videnskabilige

Meddelelser fra den naturhistoriske Forening i Kjobenhavn, for Aaret 3868, 1869,
pp. 1-82.

On the limits and classification of the Ganoids. .... < Annals and

Magazine of Natural History, (London), 4th series, v. 7, 1871, pp. 329-339.

Dr. Liitken attaches primary importance to (1) the freedom or attachment of the
gills, and (2) the communication of the air bladder with the intestinal canal or ex
clusion therefrom.

He subordinates the subdivisions as follows : —
Subclass A. TELEOSTEI s. ELEUTHEROBRANCHH.
Order 1. Physoclisti s. Acanthopteri.
Order 2. Physostomi s. Malacopteri.

Suborder a. Typici (including Cycloganoidei).
Suborder 6. Ganoidei.
Suborder c. Sturiones.
Suborder d. Protopteri.
Subclass B. CHONDKOSTEI s. DESMOBRANCHII.
Order 3. Selachii.
Order 4. Cyclostomi.
Order 5. Branchiostomi.

Incertae sedis.
Order 6. Placodermi.

The above subclass Teleostei is equivalent to the order Branchiata of Pallas, and
the subclass Telostomi of Owen ; the subclass Chondrostei, to the class Ichthyodera
of Geoffrey St. Hilaire, the order Spiraculata of Pallas, and the order Placoidei of
Agassiz.

6 COPE (Edward Drinker). Observations on the Systematic relations of the Fishes,
.... <The American Naturalist (Salem), v. 5, 1871, pp. 579-593; also,
(somewhat modified) < Proceedings of the American Association for the Ad
vancement of Science, 1871 (1872), pp. 317-343.

Prof. Cope's primary divisions or subclasses of the class PISCES are as follows : —
Subclass HOLOCEPHALI.
Subclass SELACHII.
Subclass DIPNOI.
Subclass CROSSOPTERTGIA.
Subclass ACTINOPTERI.
Tribe Chondrostei.
Tribe Physostomi.

Order Ginglymodi (Lepidosteidae).
Order Halecomorphi (Amiidae).

The succeeding orders of Physostomi and the Physoclysti are all Teleosteans of
Mfiller.

1 Giinther (Albert C. L. G.). The new Ganoid fish (Ceratodus) recently discovered
in Queensland. <: Nature, (London.) v. 4, 1871, pp. 406-408, 423-429, (447).

The author, after a careful review of the subject, is compelled to agree
with Messrs. Kner, Owen, Liitkcn, and Cope in the closer combination of
the Teleosts, Ganoids, and Dipnoans and the contradistinction of the
united group from the Elasmobranchiates, and is even disposed to admit
that the range of variation in the Ganoid series is so great that less differ
ence appears to exist between the most teleosteoid Ganoids (e. g., Amia)
and the Teleosteans than between them and the most generalized Ganoids
(e.g., Polypterus and Acipenser). But, notwithstanding this, the estab
lishment by Johannes Miiller of the subclass for which he adopted the
name Ganoidei appears to have been one of the most important in the
history of Ichthyology, as it was the expression of the discovery of char
acters which undoubtedly indicate affinity, and, however much recent
Ichthyologists have dissented from him as to the boundaries of groups, all
have left the Ganoids in immediate juxtaposition to each other, and have
chiefly differed from him as to the point where the primary division should
be established, whether on one side or other of the Miillerian Ganoids.

In the following list of families, the three subclasses of true fishes estab
lished by Miiller are still retained, but are combined under two series,
TELEOSTOMI (Owen) and ELASMOBRANCHII (Bon., Mull.), and the several
superorders are distinguished among the Ganoids. For while the author
is prepared to admit that the extremes of the Ganoids are more dissimilar
than one of those extremes and the typical physostome Teleosts, it is not
yet apparent that the relations between the Ganoids and Teleosts are as
intimate as those between the contiguous orders of the latter series.

ORDERS OF PISCES.

After a recent review of the various proposals for the modification of
the system by various authors, and due examination of the animals them
selves, the author is compelled to retain the orders of Teleosts adopted in
the classification proposed by him in 1861, suppressing, however, the (then

Description of Ceratodus, a genus of Ganoid Fishes, recently discovered in

rivers of Queensland, Australia. .... < Philosophical Transactions of the
Royal Society of London, v. 161, 1872, pp. 511-571, pi. 30-42.
Dr. Giinther recognizes only two orders among Palseichthyes, viz : —
Fourth subclass : PALSEICHTHYES.
Order 1. Chondropterygii.
Suborder 1. Plagiostoma.
Suborder 2. Holocephala.
Order 2. Ganoidei,
Suborder 1. Amioidei.
Suborder 2. Lepidosteoidei.
Suborder 3. Folypteroidei.
Suborder 4. Chondrostei.
Suborder 5. Dipnoi.

Xll

so stated) provisional order Lemniscati (which, as he subsequently urged,1
was a heterogeneous group based upon the larvae of other fishes but pri
marily those of Muraenidae), and adopting among the Teleost series the
orders OPISTHOMI, HEMIBRAXCHII, and SCYPHOPHORI (Cope), the last
of which was subsequently approximated by the author3 to the XEMATOG-
NATHI, a view since confirmed by Prof. Cope.

All the orders thus adopted, so far as considerable material indicate,
appear to be well distinguished by peculiarities of the skeleton and the
nervous system. The peculiarities of the skeleton are expressed in the
skull, (1) especially in the varying combinations of the elements which
compose the cranial box, as well as (2) the palato-pterygoid system, and
(3) the suspensorium of the lower jaw, while in (4) the modifications of
the shoulder girdle, other excellent characters are found. These are to a
greater or less extent co-ordinated with and confirmed by (5) the develop
ment of the brain, especially the internal structure of the optic lobes and
the relations of the various parts. These characters certainly seem to be
of more importance than the development of some of the bones that sustain
the fins as (pro} rays or as (con) spines, and as there is no co-ordination
between the latter developments and other modifications of structure, the
groups so distinguished must be admitted to have a very unsatisfactory
basis. And surely it is rather illogical to urge that other characters are
of little importance because they do not coincide with the structure of the
fin-rays, for the question at issue is taken for granted. But so wedded

1 GILL (Theodore Nicholas). On the Affinities of several doubtful British Fishes,

.... <: Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia,
1864, pp. 207-208; reprinted (in part). < Annals and Magazine of Natural
History, 3d series, v. 15, 1864, p. 4.

Dr. Giinther subsequently endorsed these views in general (v. 8, p. 137), but hav
ing mistaken the tenor of the remarks of the author, has afterwards stated, in respect
to Stomiasunculus, that he "cannot agree with Mr. Gill, who compares this fish to a
larval Clupeoid" (v. 8, p. 145). It will be evident, however, on reperusal, that I by
no means meant to suggest that Stomiasunculus had any affinity with Clupeoids,
the statement being that " Stomiasunculus resembles, in general features, a less
advanced [than Esunculus] Clupeoid, about three days old, in which the ventral fins
have not yet appeared." The comparison of the form in question with the larval
Clupeoid was evidently simply to verify the probability of the immature condition
of Stomiasunculus, but the true affinities were sought for elsewhere. It was added,
" suspicion, however, may be entertained that it may, perhaps, be the young of some
other type (possibly Stomiatoids), on account of the backward position of the dorsal Jin."
Such is also the opinion of Dr. Giinther himself, who remarks that "this is evidently
the young of Stomias or of a fish very closely allied to it." More than this, the evi
dence would not authorize.

2 GILL (Theodore Nicholas). Synopsis of the Fishes of the Gulf of St. Lawrence and

Bay of Fundy, .... <Tho Canadian Naturalist and Geologist (Montreal),
2d series, v. 2, 1864, p. 262.

xiii

is the mind generally to impressions early received or which have become
current, that insensibly the premises in dispute are assumed and results
viewed with preconceptions reflected from the assumed premises.

But at the same time, caution must be exercised lest too great impor
tance is attached to the minor modifications. For example, the great
frontal bone in the Gadiriae and near related subfamilies is single, as in
many other fishes, but in the subfamily Lotinae and in the family Mer-
luciidae, two entirely separate bones exist instead. Again, the inferior
pharyngeal bones are generally distinct in the Teleocephali, but in several
families they are united more or less early, and, in the extreme forms,
very soon, losing all trace of suture, and the eminent Johannes M tiller
was led to separate the forms so distinguished from other fishes as a
distinct order (Pharyngognathi) ; that such a combination, however, was
somewhat hasty is demonstrable, independently of hypothetical considera
tions as to the values of characters by certain facts. First, the combination
thus formed was a heterogeneous one, definable by no other internal or
external common characters, and composed of forms which respectively
agreed in structure, in all other respects, in the closest manner with other
widely separated types, and thus the character became tainted with suspi
cion. Second, in another form (Haploidonotus) agreeing (generically) in
almost all details — and very characteristic ones moreover — with forms
(Sciaenidae) possessed generally of entirely separated bones, the pharyngeal
bones were found united as entirely as, and even more so than, in typical
Pharyngognathi of Mtiller, and it thus became evident that per se a com
bination based on such a character would violently divorce forms from their
natural allies, and it was equally evident that the character itself was one,
liable to recur in very dissimilar groups, and not even having the advan
tage of being a technical expression of a natural group.

With these remarks, examination may be made of the various orders of
fishes that have been adopted, commencing with those forms that appear
to be the most generalized or least removed from the Ganoids: the sequence
herein adopted is the most convenient for present purposes, and is also
believed to be a tolerably close exponent of nature.

But as it will be necessary to make use of some elements concerning
which much difference of opinion prevails among anatomists, the author
deems it advisable to digress in order to examine into the merits of the
questions in dispute, and present his reasons for the nomenclature subse
quently adopted.

EXCURSUS ON THE SHOULDER GIRDLE OF FISHES.

Few problems involving the homologies of bones in the vertebrate
branch have been in so unsatisfactory a condition as that respecting the

xiv

shoulder girdle and its constituents in fishes. But the recent observa
tions of Bruhl, Gegenbaur, and Parker have thrown a flood of light upon
the subject. Some minor questions, however, appear still to be unsettled;
the writer, at least, has not been able to convince himself of the correctness
of all the identifications, and of the names conferred as expressions thereof.
Recent study has increased such doubts respecting the applicability of
former nomenclatures, and has led to conclusions different from those
announced by previous investigators.

The following are assumed as premises that will be granted by all
zootomists : —

1. Homologies of parts are best determinable, caeteris paribus,1 in the
most nearly related forms.

2. Identifications should proceed from a central or determinate point
outwards.

The applications of these principles are embodied in the following
conclusions : —

1. The forms that are best comparable and that are most nearly related
to each other, are the Dipnoi, an order of fishes at present represented by
Lepidosiren, Protopterus, and Ceratodus, and the Batrachians as repre
sented by the Ganocephala, Salamanders, and Salamander-like animals.

2. The articulation of the anterior member with the shoulder girdle
forms the most obvious and determinable point for comparison in the rep
resentatives of the respective classes.

THE GIEDLE IN DIPNOANS.
I.

The proximal element of the anterior limb in the Dipnoi has, almost by
common consent, been regarded as homologous with the HUMERUS of the
higher vertebrates.

II.

The humerus in the TJrodele Batrachians, as well as the extinct Gano
cephala and Labyrinthodontia, is articulated chiefly with the coracoid.

Therefore, the element of the shoulder girdle with which the humerus
of the Dipnoi is articulated, must also be regarded as the CORACOID
(subject to the proviso hereinafter stated), unless some specific evidence
can be shown to the contrary. No such evidence has been produced.

III.

The scapula in the Urodele and other Batrachians is entirely or almost
wholly excluded from the glenoid foramen, and above the coracoid.
Therefore, the corresponding element in Dipnoi must be the SCAPULA.

1 Parts affected by teleological modifications may be excepted.

XV

IV.

The other elements must be determined by their relation to the preced
ing, or to those parts from or in connection with which they originate.

All those elements in immediate connection1 with the pectoral fin and
the scapula must be homologous as a whole with the coraco-scapular
plate of the Batrachians, — that is, it is infinitely more probable that they
represent as a whole or as dismemberments therefrom the coraco-scapular
element than that they have independently originated.

But the homogeneity of that coraco-scapular element forbids the identi
fication of the several elements of the Fishes' shoulder girdle with regions
of the Batrachian's coraco-scapular plate.

And it is equally impossible to identify the fishes' elements with those
of the higher reptiles or other vertebrates which have developed from the
Batrachians. The elements in the shoulder girdles of the distantly sep
arated classes maij be (to use the terms introduced by Dr. Lankester) ho-
moplastic, but they are not homogenetic.

Therefore, they must be named accordingly.

The element of the Dipnoan's shoulder girdle, continuous downwards
from the scapula, and to which the coracoid is closely applied, may be
named ECTOCORACOID.

V.

Neither the scapula in Batrachians nor the cartilaginous extension
thereof, designated Suprascapula, is dissevered from the coracoid.

Therefore, there is an a priori improbability against the homology with
the scapula of any part having a distant or merely ligamentous connection
with the humerus-bearing element.

Consequently, as an element better representing the scapula exists, the
element named scapula (by Owen, Giinther, etc.) cannot be the homologue
of the scapula of Batrachians.

On the other hand, its more intimate relations with the skull and the
mode of development indicate that it is rather an element originating
and developed in more intimate connection with the skull.

It may therefore be considered, with Parker, as a POSTTEMPORAL.

VI.

The shoulder girdle in the Dipnoi is connected by an azygous differen
tiated cartilage, swollen backwards.

It is more probable that this is the homologue of the STERNUM of Ba
trachians, and that in the latter, that element has been still more differen
tiated and specialized than that it should have originated de novo from
an independently developed nucleus.

1 The so scapula and suprascapula of most authors are excluded from this connec
tion.

xvi

The homologies of the elements of the shoulder girdle of the Dipnoi
appear then to be as follows : —

Nomenclature Adopted.

Owen.

Parker.

Gflnther.

HUMERUS.

Humerus.

Humerus.

Forearm.

CORACOID
(Or PARAGLENAL).1

Scapula.

Humeral cartilage.

SCAPULA.

ECTOCORACOID
(or COEACOID) 2

[> Coracoid.

1

Supraclavicle.
CUavicle.

V Coracoid.4

STERNUM.3

j

Epicoracoid.

Median cartilage.

POSTTEMPORAL.

Scapula.

Posttemporal.

Suprascapula.

THE GIRDLE IN OTHER FISHES.

Proceeding from the basis now obtained, a comparative examination of
other types of Fishes successively removed by their affinities from the
Lepidosirenids may be instituted.

I.

With the humerus of the Dipnoans, the element in the Polypterids
(single at the base but immediately divaricating, and with its limbs bor
dering an intervening cartilage which supports the pectoral and its basilar
ossicles) must be homologous.

But it is evident that the external elements of the so-called carpus of
teleosteoid Ganoids are homologous with that element in Polypterids.

Therefore, those eleme'nts cannot be carpal, but must represent the
humerus.

1 Gelenkstelle der Brustflosse am prirailren Schulterknorpel.— Gegenbaur.

2 Clavicula. — Gegenbaur.

3 Verbindungsstelle des beiderseitigen Schulterknorpels. — Gegenbaur.

Prof. Gegenbaur regards the median cartilage as a dismemberment of a common
cartilage, the upper division of which receives the pectoral limb, while the lower
unites with the corresponding dismemberment of the opposite side and forms the
median cartilage.

4 The suture separating the "coracoid" into two portions has been observed by
Dr. Gunther, but he could " not attach much importance to this division."

XV11

II.

The element with which the homologue of the humerus, in Polypterids,
is articulated must be homologous with the analogous element in Dipiioans,
and therefore with the CORACOID.

The Coracoid of Polypterids is also evidently homologous with the
corresponding element in the other Ganoids, and the latter consequently
must be also CORACOID.

It is equally evident, after a detailed comparison, that the single Cora
coid element of the Ganoids represents the three elements developed in the
generalized Teleosts (Cyprinids, etc.) in connection with the basis of the
pectoral fin, and such being the case, the nomenclature should correspond.
Therefore, the upper element may be named HYPERCORACOID ; the lower,
HYPOCORACOID ; and the transverse or median, MESOCORACOID.

Ill— IV.

(PROSCAPULA, or united SCAPULA and ECTOCORACOID.)
The two elements of the arch named by Parker, in Lepidosiren, "supra-
clavicle" (= scapula), and " clavicle" (= ectocoracoid) seem to be com
parable together, and as a whole with the single element carrying the
humerus and pectoral fin in the Crossopterygians (Polypterus and Gala-
moichthys) and other fishes,1 and therefore not identical respectively with
the " supraclavicle" and " clavicle" (except in part) recognized by him in
other fishes.

As this compound bone, composed of the scapula and ectocoracoid fused
together, has received no name which is not ambiguous or deceptive in its
homological allusions, it may be designated as PROSCAPULA.

V.

The posttemporal of the Dipnoans is evidently represented by the anal
ogous element in the Ganoids generally, as well as in the typical fishes.

The succeeding elements (outside those already alluded to) appear from
their relations to be developed from or in connection with the posttem
poral, and not from the true scapular apparatus ; they may therefore be
named POSTTEMPORAL, POSTEROTEMPORAL, and TELEOTEMPORALS.

1 Dr. Giinther (Phil. Trans., v. 161, p. 531) has observed, respecting the division
in question in Lepidosiren and Ceratodus : " I cannot attach much value to this divi
sion ; the upper piece is certainly not homologous with the scapula of Teleostean
fishes, which is far removed from the region of the pectoral condole."

October, 1872. 2

XV1I1

The homologies of the elements of the girdle of Dipnoans with those
of other fishes, and the added elements in the latter will be as follows :

Cuvier.

Owen.

Gegenbaur.

Parker.

ACTINOSTS.
CORACOID

or PARAGLENAL.

Os du carpe.

Carpal.
Simple in Dipn<

Basalstucke der
Brustflosse.

n and Ganoidei

Brachial.

HYPERCORACOID.

Radial.

Ulna.

Oberes Stuck
(Scapulare).

Scapula.

MESOCORACOID.

Troisieme os de 1'
avant bras qui
porte 1'nageoire
pectorale.

Humerus.

Spangenstiick.

Precoracoid.

HYPOCORACOID.

Cubital.

Radius.

Vorderes Stuck
(Procoracoid).

Coracoid.

PROSCAPDLA.'

Humeral.

Coracoid.

Clavicula.

Clavicle.

SCAPULA.
ECTOCORACOID.

Differentiated only in Dipnoi.

SCAPULA.
ECTOCORACOID.

Differentiated only in Dipnoi.

STERNUM.

Differentiated in Dipnoi.

POSTTEMPORAL ELEMENTS.

POSTTEMPORAL.
POSTEROTEMPORAL.

TELEOTEMPORALS.

Suprascapulaire.
Scapulaire.
Os coracoidien.

Suprascapula.
Scapula.
Clavicle.

Supraclaviculare
(a).
Supraclaviculare
(b).
Accessorisches
Stiick.

Posttemporal.
Supraclavicle.
Postclavicles.

It will be thus seen that the determinations here adopted depend mainly
(1) on the interpretation of the homologies of the elements with which
the pectoral limbs are articulated, and (2) on the application of the term
" coracoid." The name " eoracoid," originally applied to the process so
called in the human scapula, and subsequently extended to the independent
element homologous with it in birds and other vertebrates, has been more
especially retained (e.g., by Parker in Mammals, etc.) for the region in
cluding the glenoid cavity. On the assumption that this may be preferred
by most zootomists, the preceding terms have been applied. But, if the
name should be restricted to the proximal element, nearest the glenoid
cavity, in which ossification commences, the name PARAGLENAL given by

1 The name scapula might have been retained for this element as it is (if the views
here maintained are correct) homologous with the entire scapula of man, less the
coracoid and glenoid elements, but the restricted meaning has been so universally
adopted that it would be inexpedient now to extend the word.

XIX

Duges to the cartilaginous glenoid region can be adopted, and the cora-
coid would then be represented (in part), rather by the element so named
by Owen. That eminent anatomist, however, reached his conclusion (only
in part the same as that here adopted) by an entirely different course of
reasoning, arid by a process, as it may be called, of elimination ; that is,
recognizing first the so-called "radius" and "ulna," the "humerus," the
*' scapula," and the " coracoid" were successively identified from their rela
tions to the elements thus determined, and because they were numerically
similar to the homonymous parts in higher vertebrates.

The detailed arguments for these conclusions, and references to the views
of other authors, will be given in a future memoir. I will only add" here
that these homologies seem to be fully sustained by the relations of the
parts in the generalized Gauocephalous Batrachians (Apateon or Archego-
saurus, etc.).

CHARACTERISTICS AND SEQUENCE OF PRIMARY

GROUPS.

Returning now to the consideration of tne primary classification of
Fishes, the results are submitted, in brief, of inquiries thus far instituted
into the limits, characters, and relations of the orders and including groups.

While among the Mammals, there is almost1 universal concurrence as to
the forms entitled to the first as well as the last places, naturalists differ
much concerning the "highest" of the ichthyoid vertebrates, but are all of
one accord respecting the form, to be designated as the "lowest." With
that admitted lowest form as a starting-point, inquiry may be made re
specting the forms which are successively most nearly related.

LEPTOCARDIA.NS.

No dissent has ever been expressed from the proposition that the Lepto-
cardians (Branchiostoma) are the lowest of the Vertebrates ; while they
have doubtless deviated much from the representatives of the immediate
line of descent of the higher vertebrates, and arc probably specialized con
siderably, in some respects, in comparison with those vertebrates from
which they (in common with the higher forms) have descended, they un
doubtedly have diverged far less, and furnish a better hint as to the proto-
vertebrates than any other form.

MARSIPOBRANCHIATES.

Equally undisputed is it that most nearly related to the Leptocardians

1 One eminent authority appears to think that the Cetaceans are the lowest and
most differentiated ®f Mammals, and, as a matter of fact, no one, it is presumed,
would dispute the proposition that the differences are more obvious, but they are
ideological, and not morphological; therefore, and in view of the gradation between
them and normal quadrupeds furnished by extinct types, naturalists are almost
agreed in denying the characters in question a taxonomic value equal to that accorded
to the differences exhibited by the Monotremes.

XX

are the Marsipobranchiates (Lampreys, etc.), and the tendency has been
rather to overlook the fundamental differences between the two, and to ap
proximate them too closely, than the reverse.

PISCES.

But here unanimity ends, and much difference of opinion has prevailed
with respect to the succession in the system of the several sub-classes (by
whatever name called) of true Fishes, (1) some (e. g. Cuvier, J. Miiller,
Owen, Liitken, Cope) arranging next to the lowest, the Elasmobranchiates
and, as successive forms, the Ganoids and Teleosteans, (2) while others (e. g.
Agassiz, Dana, Dumeril, Giinther) adopt the sequence Leptocardians, Mar
sipobranchiates, Teleosteans, Ganoids, and Elasmobranchiates. The source
of this difference of opinion is evident, and results partly from metaphysical
or psychological considerations, and partly from those based (in the case
of the Ganoids) on real similarities and affinities.

ELASMOBKANCHIATES.

The evidence in favor of the title of the Elasmobranchiates to the " high
est" rank is based upon, (1) the superior development of the brain; (2)
the development of the egg, and the ovulation ; (3) the possession of a
placenta ; and (4) the complexity of the organs of generation.

(1) It has not been definitely stated wherein the superior development
of the brain consists, and as it is not evident to the author, the vague
claim can only be met by this simple statement : it may be added, however,
that the brains comparable in essentials and most similar as a whole to
those of the Marsipobranchiates, are those of the Sharks. In answer to
the statement that the Sharks exhibit superior intelligence, and thus con
firm the indications of cerebral structure, it may be replied that the impres
sion is a subjective one, and the author has not been thus influenced by his
own observations of their habits. Psychological manifestations, at any rate,
furnish too vague criteria to be available in exact taxonomy

(2) If the development of the eggs, their small number, and their invest
ment in cases, are arguments in favor of the high rank of the Elasmobran
chiates, they are also for the Marsipobranchiates, and thus prove too much
— or too little — for the advocates of the view discussed. The variation in
number of progeny among true Fishes (e. g., Cyprinodonts, Embiotocids}
also demonstrates the unreliability of those modifications per se.

(3) The so-called placenta of some Elasmobranchiates may be analogous
to that of Mammals, but that it is not homologous (i. e., homogenetic) is
demonstrable from the fact that all the forms intervening between them
and the specialized placental mammals are devoid of a placenta, and by the
variation (presence or want) among the Elasmobranchiates themselves.

(4) The organs of generation in the Elasmobranchiates are certainly

XXI

more complex than in most other Fishes, but as the complexity results from
specialization of parts sui generis, and different from those of the higher
(quadruped) vertebrates, it is not evident what bearing the argument has.
If it is claimed simply on the ground of specialization, irrespective of homo-
logical agreement with admitted higher forms, then are we equally entitled
to claim any specialization of parts as evidence of high rank, or at least
we have not been told within what limits we should be confined. The
Cetaceans, for example, are excessively specialized Mammals, and, on
similar grounds, would rank above the other Mammals and Man ; the Aye-
aye exhibits in its dentition excessive specialization and deviation from the
primitive type (as exhibited in its own milk teeth) of the Primates, and
should thus also rank above Man. It is true that in other respects the
higher Primates (even excluding man) may be more specialized, but the
specialization is not as obvious as in the cases referred to, and it is not evi
dent how we are to balance irrelative specializations against each other,
or even how we shall subordinate such cases.1 We are thus compelled by
the reductio adabsurdum to the confession that irrelative specialization of
single organs is untrustworthy, and are fain to return to that better method
of testing affinities by the equation of agreement in whole, and after the
elimination of special teleological modifications.

The question then recurs, What forms are the most nearly allied to the
Marsipobranchiates, and what show the closest approach in characteristic
features. And in response thereto, the evidence is not undecisive. Wide
as is the gap between Marsipobranchiates and Fishes, and comparatively
limited as is the range of the latter among themselves, the Elasrao-
branchiates are very appreciably more like, and share more characters in
common with them, than any other ; so much is this the case, that some
eminent naturalists (e. g. Pallas, Geoffrey St.-Hilaire, Latreille, Agassiz
(formerly), Lutken) have combined the two forms in a peculiar group, con
tradistinguished from the other fishes. The most earnest and extended
argument, in English, in favor of this combination, has been published by
Prof. Agassiz, in his "Lake Superior,"2 but that eminent naturalist subse
quently arrived at the opposite conclusions already indicated. «

The evidences of the closer affinity of the Elasmobranchiates (than of
any other Fishes) with the Marsipobranchiates, are furnished by (1) the
cartilaginous condition of the skeleton ; (2) the post-cephalic position of the
branchiae ; (3) the development of the branchiae, and their restriction to spe
cial chambers; (4) the larger number of branchiae ; (5) the imperfect develop-

1 It will recur to the reader that in the case referred to, the question is really as to
the degree of specialization.

2 Agassiz (Louis). Lake Superior : its Physical Character, Vegetation, and Animals,
1°59, pp. 249-252.

xxii

merit of the skull ; (6) the mode of attachment of the teeth; (7) the slight
degree of specialization of the rays of the fins; and (8) the rudimentary
condition of the shoulder-girdle.

In none of these cases is there exact, or even very close similarity, for,
as already remarked, the gap between the Fishes (and the Elasmobranchi-
ates as the most generalized form) and the Marsipobranchiates is extremely
wide. In each case, however, the generalized or rudimentary condition of
the organs points to the still more generalized, rudimentary, or undeveloped
conditions exhibited by the Marsipobranchiates. The testimony of these
parts is also concurrent, is reinforced by other resemblances, less obvious
but valuable as accumulative, and is not offset by the evidence of other
parts (unless irrelative specialization of isolated parts is considered as con
tradictory evidence). And still more, there are no other forms that can be
compared with the Marsipobranchiates in even approximately so satisfac
tory a manner. Therefore, with no hesitation, the sub-class of Elasmo-
branchiates is placed as the succeeding term in the ichthyological series.

PLA9IOSTOMI.

On the whole, the Sharks appear to be the most generalized of the Elas-
mobranchiates, and there is little doubt but that the Rays are a more
specialized offshoot from the same primitive stock.

HOLOCEPHALI.

More nearly related to the Sharks than to the Rays, but differentiated
from representatives of a primitive line of descent, the HOLOCEPIIALI claim
the next consideration. If, in some respects, they appear to be more nearly
related to the Ganoids, the Plagiostomes do in others, and it yet remains
to be decided which are the most generalized in essential features. Mean
while, it seems advisable to preserve the place for the Plagiostomi.

GANOIDEI.

By common consent, the Ganoids immediately succeed the Elasmobran-
chiates. Before considering the sequence of the forms, a brief inquiry into
the constitution of the class may be seasonable.

HISTORICAL NOTE.

The name Ganoides (or Goniolepedoti) was originally framed by Prof.
Agassiz1 as an ordinal term for fishes having the scales (when present)

1 lcr ordre. Ganoides Agass. (Goniolepidoti Agass.). Ecailles anguleuses, rhom-
bo'idales ou polygones, formees de lames osseuses on cornees, recouvertes d'einail. —
Les families des Lepido'ides, des Sauro'ides, des Pycnodontes, des Sclerodermes, des
Gymuodontes, des Lophobranches, etc. etc. — Agass. Recherches sur les Poissons fos-
siles, v. 2, p. 1.

XX111

angular and covered with enamel ; and, in the group so characterized, were
combined the Ganoids of subsequent authors as well as the Telcostean
orders Plectognathi, Lophobranchii, and Nematognathi, and (subsequently)
the genus Sudis (Arapaima], the last being regarded as a Coelacanth.
The group has not been accepted with these limits or characters.

But the researches of Prof. Johannes Miiller, on the anatomy and classi
fication of the fishes, culminated at length in his celebrated memoirs on
those fishes for which he retained the ordinal name Ganoidei ; those me
moirs have left an impression on Ichthyology perhaps more decided than
made by any other contributions to the science, and that published in ex-
tenso will ever be classical ; numerous as have been the modifications since
introduced into the system, no forms except those recognized by Miiller
(unless it be Dipnoi) have since been interjected among the Ganoids.

Without premonition in any other form, the results of his studies of the
Ganoids were announced to the Royal Academy of Sciences of Berlin in
December, 1844,1 and this communication was supplemented, on the 13th
February, 1845, by observations on the bulbus arteriosus, and on the 12th
March, 1846, by a more extended memoir, giving the results of subsequent
investigations.2 These were combined, and, with his previous contributions

1 MtiLLER (Johannes). Uber den Bau und die Grenzen der Gano'iden und iiber das
natiirliche System der Fische. • • • Gelesen in der Akademie der Wissenschaf-
ten, am 12 December, 1844.
Published in abstract in the Monatsberichte der Koniglichen Preuss. Akademie

der Wissenscliaften zu Berlin, 1844, pp. 416-422 ; in advance < Archiv fur Natur-

geschichte (Berlin), 11 Jahrg., b. I, 1845, pp. 91-141 ; in full (with modifications)

•< Abhandiungen der Koniglichen Akademie der Wissenscliaften zu Berlin, 1844

(1846), pp. 117-216, 6 pi.

The memoir, as published in the Archiv fiir Naturgcschichte, was translated into

French, English, and Italian, viz : —

Memoire sur les Gano'ides et sur la classification naturelle des Poissons. • • •

< Annales des Sciences Naturelles, 3e s6rie, v. 4, 1845, pp. 5-53.
This translation was by Dr. Carl Vogt, and was followed by an original memoir

(Quelques observations sur les caracteres qui servent a la classification des Poissons

Ganoides. Par M. C. Vogt, pp. 53-68. pi. 9), detailing especially the results of his

examination of Amia. and first revealing its Ganoid characteristics.

On the Structure and Characters of the Ganoidei, and on the natural Classifi
cation of Fishes. ... < Scientific Memoirs, selected from the Transaction of
foreign academies of science and learned societies, and from foreign Journals,
edited by Richard Taylor, v. 4, 1846, pp. 499-558.

* Fernere Bermerkungen iiber den Bau der Ganoiden, .... < Monats
berichte, etc., 1846, pp. 67-85 ; a/so, < Archiv fiir Naturgeschichte, 1846, I,
pp. 190-208.

Further Remarks on the Structure of the Ganoidei, . . . . < Scientific

Memoirs, etc., v. 4, pp. 543-558.

XXIV

to the knowledge of the natural families of fishes, somewhat modified, and
published in the extended memoir which appeared in the Transactions
(Abhandlungen) of the Society.

The memoir, as finally published in the Abhandlungen, contained addi
tional details (on pp. 118, 126 to 129, physiological observations on the
bulbus arteriosus;1 pp. 154 to 195, Abschnitt II. iiber die naturlichen
Ordnungen und Familien der Knochenfische8) ; the paragraphs on the
Apodcs, Esoces, Galaxiae, and Clupesoces in the Archiv (pp. 131-134)
were omitted, and a postscript (Nachschrift, pp. 204-208) was added
containing the results of subsequent observations, and especially remarks
on the genus Amia and Carl Vogt's researches thereon. This postscript
was, in many respects, a reproduction of an article published in the Mo-
natsberichte.

The memoir next in importance from the great light which was shed
upon many obscure questions of Palaeichthyology was contributed by
England's great naturalist, Prof. Huxley.3 In the article in question,
though professedly upon the Devonian fishes, all that could render intel
ligible the forms treated was called into requisition, and many unexpected
relations were demonstrated or approximated.

The discovery of a representative of the Ceratodontids, a type previously
supposed to have become extinct in the triassic epoch, was the next event
of importance ; the most sagacious recognition of its affinities, evidence of
extended knowledge, by its nomenclator (Dr. Krefft, of Melbourne, Aus
tralia), provoked earnest investigation of its structure, and to Dr. Giinther
(see p. xi), we are indebted for an elaborate description thereof. The
light derived from this examination was reflected upon the allied extinct
types, and it was clearly shown that the order, once regarded as so isolated,
had been rich in representatives in the distant past.

And for various other additions to our knowledge of these forms, we are

1 Published in the Archir (pp. 138-141) as an appendix (Nachtrag) to his memoir
on the Ganoids.

2 Published originally in the Archiv fiir Naturgeschichte (9 Jahrg., h. I, p. 292-
330), where it appeared with the title " Beitrage zur Kenutniss der naturlichen
Familien der Fische," but considerably modified, and especially by the exclusion of
the Dipnoan and Ganoid fishes from the series. See, also, pp. 155, 158 (GoboTdei vice
Cyclopodi), 4- 159-160 (Scales) 175-178 (Anacanthini), 182 (degrading Goniodontes),
186 (Aplochiton, Microstoma), 187 (Galaxiae), 188 (Esoces), 190-192 (Clupeidze),
192 (4- Heteropygii), 193-194 (Apodes).

3 HUXLEY (Thomas Henry). Preliminary Essay upon the Systematic Arrangement
of the Fishes of the Devonian Epoch, .... <: Memoirs of the Geological
Survey of the United Kingdom. Figures and Descriptions illustrative of British,
organic remains. Decade x., 1861, pp. 1-40.

i

XXV

indebted to the labors of Agassiz, Liitken1 (see p. x), Cope (see p. x),
and Lankester.

THE GANOIDS A NATURAL GROUP.

It has been objected that the Ganoids do not constitute a natural group,
and that the characters (i. e., chiasraa of optic nerves and multi valvular
bulbus arteriosus) alleged by Miiller to be peculiar to the teleostomous
forms combined therein, are problematical, and only inferentially supposed
to be common to the extinct Ganoids so called, and, finally, such objections
couched in too strong language have culminated 'in the assertion that the
characters in question are actually shared by other physostome fishes.

No demonstration, however, has been presented as yet that any physos
tome fishes do really have the optic chiasma and multivalvular bulbus ar
teriosus, and the statement to the contrary seems to have been the result
of a venial misapprehension of Prof. Kner's statements, or the offspring of
impressions left on the memory by his assertions, in forgetfulness of his
exact words.

But Prof. Kner,3 in respect to the anatomical characters referred to,
merely objects ; (1) they are problematical, are not confirmable for the
extinct types, and were probably not existent in certain forms that have
been referred to the Ganoids ; (2) the difference in number of the valves
of the bulbus arteriosus among recent Ganoids is so great as to show the
unreliability of the character ; (8) a spiral valve is developed in the intes
tine of several osseous fishes (" genera of the so-called intermediate clu-
peoid groups") as well as in Ganoids ; and (4) the chiasma of the optic
nerves in no wise furnishes a positive character for the Ganoids.8

1 The extended memoir of Dr. Liitken (Om Ganoidernes Begraendsning og Inddel-
ing) contains a valuable resume of the history, up to 1867, of the Ganoids, as well as
a full bibliography relating to the group, and a critical discussion of the forms re
ferred to it.

2 KNER (Rudolph). Betrachtungen iiber die Gano'iden, etc. < op. cit. (supra, p.
00), p. 522.

" Noch andere der angefiihrten Merkmale sind geradezu problematisck, da sie nur
auf rnuthmasslichen Voraussetzungen und Aunahmen beruhen, nicht aber als
wirklich vorhanden nachzuweisen sind. Zu solchen gehoren die von J. Muller fur
lebende Ganoiden hervorgehobenen anatomischen Merkmale: [1] der muskulose
Bulbus mit mehreren Klappenreihen, [2] das Chiasma und [3] die Spiralklappe im
Darmcanal. .

[1] Fiir die allermeisten fossilen Fische, die fur Ganoiden gelten, ist nicht nachweisbar,
dass diese Merkmale vorhanden waren und vielmehr mit Grund zu vermuthen, dass
sie namentlich solchen nicht zukamen, die in alter Zeit als Protypen spiiterer Teleo-
stier auftreten,"wie z. B. den triasichen Gattungen Belonorhynchus, Pholidophorus u.v.a.
Allein ganz abgesehen hievon, so durfte doch darauf hinzuweisen sein, in welch un-
gleichein Grade sich diese Merkmale selbst bei den verschiedenen Gattungen der le-

xxvi

It will be noticed that all these objections (save in the case of the intes
tinal spiral valve) are hypothetical and vague. The failure of the intes
tinal spiral valve, as a diagnostic character, has long been conceded, and
in this case only have the forms that prove the failure been referred to ; in
the other cases, where it would be especially desirable to have indicated
the actual types falsifying the universality or exclusiveness of the charac
ters, they have not been referred to, and the objections must be met as if
they were not known to exist.

(1) The characters in question are, in the sense used, problematical, in
asmuch as no examination can be made of the soft parts of extinct forms,
but with equal force may it be urged that any characters that have not or
cannot be directly confirmed are problematical, in the case of all other
groups (e. g., Mammals), and it can only be replied that the co-ordination
of parts has been so invariably verified that all probabilities are in favor
of similar co-ordination in any given case.

(2) There is doubtless considerable difference in the number of valves
of the bulbus arteriosus among the various Ganoids, and even among the
species of a single family (e. g., Lepidosteidse), but the character of Ga
noids lies not in the number, more or less, but in the greater number and
relations (in contradistinction to the opposite pair1 of the Teleosts) in con
junction with the development of a bulbus arteriosus. In no other forms
of Teleostomes have similar relations and structures been yet demonstrated.

(3) The failure of the spiral intestinal valve has already been conceded,
and no great stress has ever been laid on the character.

(4) The chiasma of the optic nerves is common to all the known Ga
noids, and has not been found in those forms (e. g., Arapaima, Osteoglos-
sum, and Clupeiform types) agreeing with typical physostome Teleosts in
the skeleton, heart, etc., but which at the same simulate most certain Ga
noids (e. g., Amid) in form.

benden Ganoiden vorfinden ; man braucht sich nur [2] der grossen Differemen in der
Zahl der Aortenstiel-Klappen bei Lepisosteus und Amia zu erinuern, oder [3] des Um-
standes, dass eine Spiralklappe im Darmcanale unter den lebenden Fischen nicht
bios bei Ganoiden, sondern aucli bei Selachiern und mehreren Knochenfischen (Gat-
tungen der sogenannten intermediaren Clupeiden-Gruppen) und nicht bios im Diinn-
darme, sondern auch in andern Abtheilungen des Verdauungsrohres sich vorfindet,
und dass auch [4] die Chiasmabildung keineswegs einen verlasslichen Unterschied
der Ganoiden abgibt. — Kner, op. cit., pp. 522-523.

This paragraph is the only one that squarely meets the question of the applica
bility of the fundamental characters of the Ganoids, as given by Miiller. It need only
be added that the ideas respecting probability of pertinence must be a reflection from
the deductions resulting from a more or less thorough study of the known elements.
The question as to the value of the chiasma is certainly disposed of in a very sum
mary manner, but not in an equally satisfactory one.

1 "The sunfish (Orthayoriscus) has four such valves." — Owen, Anat. Vert., I. 474.

xxvii

Therefore, in view of the evidence hitherto obtained, the arguments
against the validity of title, to natural consociation, of the Ganoids have to
meet the positive evidence of the co-ordinations noted ; the value of such
characteristics and co-ordinations can only be affected or destroyed by the
demonstration that in all other respects there is (1) very close agreement
of certain of the constituents of the subclass with other forms, and (2)
inversely proportionate dissimilarity of those forms from any (not all) other
of the Ganoids, and consequently evidence ubi plurima nitent against the
taxonomic value of the characters employed for distinction.

And it is true that there is a greater superficial resemblance between the
Hyoganoids and ordinary physostome Teleosts than between the former
and the other orders of Ganoids, but it is equally true that they agree in
other respects than in the brain and heart with the more generalized Ga
noids. They all have, for example, (1) the paraglenal elements undivided
(not disintegrated into hypercoracoid, hypocoracoid, and mesocoracoid), (2)
a humerus (simple, or divided — that is, differentiated into metapterygium
and mesopterygium), and (3) those with ossified skeletons agree in the greater
number of elements in the lower jaw. Therefore, until these co-ordinates
fail, it seems advisable to recognize the Ganoids as constituents of a natural
series, and especially on account of the superior taxonomic value of modi
fications of the brain and heart in other classes of Vertebrates, for the same
reason, and to keep prominently before the mind the characters in question,
it appears also advisable to designate the series, until further discovery, as
a subclass.

But it is quite possible that among some of the generalized Teleosts, at
least traces of some of the characters now considered to be peculiar to the
Ganoids maybe discovered. In anticipation of such possibility, the author
had at first discarded the subclass, recognizing the group only as one of
the " superorders" of the Teleostomes, but reconsideration convinces him
of the propriety of classification representing known facts and legitimate
inferences rather than too much anticipation.

It is remembered that all characters are liable to fail with increasing
knowledge, and the distinctness of groups are but little more than the ex
pressions of our want of knowledge of intermediate forms ; it may in truth
be said that ability to segregate a class into well-defined groups is in ratio
to our ignorance of all the terms.

SEQUENCE OF GANOIDS.

The questions, (1) which are the most generalized of the Ganoids, and
(2) what is the most natural succession of forms, are not the simple prob
lems they might appear to be, if only the histological condition of the ske
leton should be taken into account. If, on the one hand, in such respects,

xxviii

the Chondrosteans appear to approach the Elasmobranehiates most — on the
other hand, in the development of the paraglenal, and the structure of the
base of the pectoral fin, they differ less from the ichthyoid Hyoganoids
than do the Crossopterygians and the Dipnoans. Nevertheless, they seem
on the whole to be the more direct representatives of the lineal succession
from the Elasmobranehiates, although doubtless very much modified and
different ordinally from the unknown immediate representatives. This has
been the view or at least the practice of all ichthyologists except Prof.
Cope.

The eminent naturalist referred to has contended that the Chondrosteans
were more nearly related to the typical fishes, and has (1) combined them as
well as the Hyoganoids with the Teleosteans in a peculiar subclass (Acti-
nopteri), while (2) the Crossopterygians were differentiated as another, and
(3) the Dipnoans retained with similar rank.

The chief considerations, apparently, which induced Prof. Cope to isolate
the Crossopterygians and combine the Chondrosteans with the forms re
ferred to, were the result of his study of the pectoral members and their
insertion, and the inference therefrom that there was an essential similarity
therein between the Chondrosteans and Teleosts, and a fundamental dis
similarity between them and the Crossopterygians.

Apart from the development of a single or double ceratohyal, which was
evidently regarded as of subordinate importance,1 the only expressed diffe
rences between Cope's subclasses Crossopterygia and Actinopteri are found
in the constitution of the pectoral fins, viz : —

CROSSOPTERYGIA: "Limbs having the derivative radii of the primary
series on the extremity of the basal pieces, which are in the pectoral fin
metapterygium, mesopterygium, and propterygium."

ACTINOPTERI : " Primary radii of fore limb parallel with basilar elements,
both entering the articulation with scapular arch. Basilar elements re
duced to metapterygium and very rarely mesopterygium. Primary radii
of posterior limb generally reduced to one rudiment."

The question arises (1) whether the fundamental differences exist which
appear to be expressed by the definitions cited ; (2) the correlated one, whether
too much importance may not have been attached to superficial relations
of parts, and too little to fundamental hornological relations, and (3) even
if the horaological relations are as dissimilar as the definitions would indi
cate, are they coincident with others, and thus really indicative of such
high value.

EXCURSUS ON THE PECTORAL LIMB.

The diagnoses in question seem to be partly (i. e., the articulation or not

1 The Dipnoi have a double ceratohyal.

XXIX

of the radii direct with the scapular arch) the expressions of matters of
fact, and partly the interpretation of homologies.

It is assumed (1) that the external basal element of the limb in Chon-
drosteans is equivalent to the median element (when differentiated) of the
plagiostome Elasmobranchiates, and is, therefore, the mesopterygium, and
(2) that the propterygium is not developed.

It is not evident, however, why the external element should not be
homologous, in part at least;, with the propterygium of the Elasmobran
chiates. The latter affords a better basis for identification, and it would
seem more justifiable — if it must needs be identified with a single element
— to refer it to the propterygium rather than to the mesopterygium. The
mesopterygium may (1) either be represented, in the Chondrosteans, by an
independent element ("r" in Gegenbaur's Untersuchungen), crowded out
of place by the intervention of the rays (as in certain Raise), or (2) it may
be entirely suppressed through atrophy, or (3) it may be fused with the
propterygium (as in the Heterodontidae and Scymnidse).1 In the first case,
the expressed differences of the Crossopterygians would be confined to the
exclusion of the actinosteal element from direct articulation with the scapu
lar arch. But in the most teleosteoid of the Ganoids (Amia), we find even
that condition approximated, only one (of the seven actinosts) being artic
ulated directly with the arch, the rest being connected with the metaptery-
gium.

But even supposing that the mesopterygium is an element entirely
wanting in the Hyoganoids and Chondrosteans, two elements (metaptery-
gium and propterygium) are developed in those forms in common with the
Crossopterygians, and which are wanting in the Teleosts. It is not evi
dent why the development of a mesopterygium should be of importance
so much superior to that of the other two elements, or why the mere fact
that the articulation of the actinosts with the scapular arch should be of
such paramount significance as to justify the combination of all forms
agreeing therein (including the Chondrosteans and all Teleost fishes),
and the separation therefrom, as co-ordinate terms, of forms not agreeing
therein.

But it is true that the evidence appears to be somewhat contradictory
as to the relations of the forms distinguished by the structure of the pec
toral limbs as well as the scapular arch. On the one hand, the Chondros-
teaus (rather than Crossopterygians) agree with the Hyoganoids in the con
struction of the paraglenal element as well as the pectoral member ; on the
other hand, the Crossopterygians appear to agree more with the Elasmo-

1 Most naturalists would probably prefer either of these interpretations to the ho-
mological representation in Choudrostean, by a mesopterygium disintegrated and
represented by apparent rays.

XXX

branchiates, and less with the Hyoganoids, in these 'respects. But the
Crossopterygians agree with the latter much better in the composition of
the skull and squamation, and the question therefore arises whether it is
more probable that the Crossopterygians should have attained that special
ized similarity to the Hyoganoids from an independent origin, or whether
they should have departed (after having received such characters from a
common progenitor) in the structure of the scapular arch and the pectoral
member, and whether the apparent greater similarity in those respects to
the Elasmobranchiates is not rather adaptive, or the result of simplicity of
structure of the paraglenal. Possibly, the following hypothesis may ap
proximate the truth, and account for the divergencies of the several types.
The Acanthodeans of the devonian and following epochs may be the
nearest of kin known to the representatives of the direct line of descent
from the typical Elasmobranchiates ; the development of two marginal
(external and internal) spines in the pectoral limb may lend significance
to the specialized condition of the metapterygium and propterygium in
the pectoral limbs of the succeeding forms, as may also the character of the
scales for those of the typical " Ganoid" type.

CHONDROGANOIDS.

The Chondrosteans furnish the most satisfactory evidence of closest re
lationship with the ancestral stock in the histological condition of the ske
leton, the generalized and little concentrated brachial and hyoid apparatus,
and the structure of the fins. At the same time they are considerably
removed from the direct line of descent.1

BRACHIOGANOID AND DIPNOAN OFFSHOOTS.

From the ancestral stock, somewhat more specialized than that from
which the Chondrosteans originated, but with approximately the same
pattern of pectoral limb, forms may have been developed in which the me
tapterygium and propterygium (converging towards the base in the Chon
drosteans — and Acanthodeans ?) finally approximated and grew together ;
the intervening cartilage (mesopterygium) became ejected and projected
backwards, bearing the specialized actinosts on a convex periphery.

(1) From such an ancestor a long line may have descended which finally
culminated in the specialized Crossopterygians now known.

(2) From an equally ancient stock, and deviating less in histological
characters, the Dipnoans may have descended : in such forms, the metaptery
gium and propterygium, instead of diverging backwards, may have con-

1 There are some reasons for thinking that the Selachostomi are the most general
ized group of Ganoids.

xxxi

tinued to grow together, ejecting more and more the mesopterygium, which
would become, pari passu, correspondingly elongated and extended back
wards ; finally, it would become segmented, and the actinosts and rays
having become lateral instead of terminal, the limb of Ceratodus would be
developed.

(3) And finally, should the lateral elements and rays of the pectoral fin
of Ceratodus become (1) successively aborted, and finally (2) entirely atro
phied, the limbs of (1) Lepidosiren and (2) Protopterus would be repro
duced.

In view of the varying combinations of the basal elements of the limbs
in the Elasmobranchiates (e. g., Scymnidae, in which all are consolidated),
the suppositions thus hazarded do not appear to be unreasonable or op
posed by histological or developmental principles or facts.

The question, how the limbs of the quadruped Batrachians have become
specialized from such members, is foreign to the present inquiry.

HYOGANOIDS.

The question now recurs, what are the relations and nearest of kin of
the Hyoganoids ?

A more significant hint appears to be furnished by the structure and form
of the scales of some of the representatives of the group, than by any other
part of the structure.

The similarity, in form as well as in intimate structure, of the scales of
t~e Lepidosteids to those of the Polypterids is so close, and the peculiari
ties and specialized characters of those scales are so many, that the fishes
distinguished by such common characters must have inherited them from a
common progenitor. Any other supposition would be in opposition to
the strongest probabilities. For it must be remembered that the commu
nity of character is not a general one like that between ordinary cycloid
or ctenoid scales, but a close one of a very specialized and proportionately
suggestive nature. This similarity is also coincident with a corresponding
— though not so great — similarity of the skull, especially the suspensorial
apparatus, etc.

But while the Polypterids have deviated widely in some respects — and,
among others, in their limbs and the connections of the air-bladder and in
testinal canal — from the primitive stock, the Lepidosteids, deviating equally
in other respects, have done so less in respect to their limbs.

In the Lepidosteids and the Amiids are found the nearest representatives,
among the Ganoids, of the line of descent in the direction of the typical
fishes, as in the Crossopterygians and Dipnoans are found the nearest
living forms in the line leading towards the Batrachians and higher Verte
brates.

XXX11
OENALOGICAL TREE OF GANOIDS.

The following table is added as a graphic illustration of the views just
unfolded : —

I

Skeleton cartilaginous.) Limbs squalo-acipenseroid.

Noto(ohord persistent ; limba squalo-acipenseroid.

Mesopterygium developed. )

| ( Skeleton osseous.

Mesopterygium
suppressed.

The left branches indicate the more generalized of the contrasted types.
The quasi-diagnostic phrases pertain to the succeeding forms, hypothetical
or known, till contradicted. The term " squalo-acipenseroid" is intended
for a type more generalized than the acipenseroid, and devoid of the special
modifications exhibited by the Chondrosteans.

The relations between the various representatives of the Ganoid subclass
are very unequal, and they may be advantageously combined into groups
more comprehensive than orders. In fine, following out the views just
expressed, and subordinating the orders as recommended, we would have the
following sequence, starting with the most generalized:—

xxxiii

? ACANTHODEI.
SUPERORDER ClIONDROGANOIDEI.

(Aberrant.)
Order Chondrostei.
Order Glaniostomi.

SUPERORDER BRACHIOGANOIDEI.
(Leading to the Dipnoans.)
Order Actinistia.
Order Crossopterygia.

SUPERORDER DIPNOI.

(Leading to the Batrachians.)

Order Sirenoidei.

SUPERORDER HYOGANOIDEI.
(Leading to the Teleosts.)
Order Rhomboganoidei.
Order Cycloganoidei.

ON THE TERMS " HIGH" AND " Low."

The conclusions resulting from the study of the preceding types may
render advisable the reconsideration of the reasons of the discrepancy
existing among naturalists as to the sequence of the several forms referred
to. It has been remarked (p. xx) that the reasons were obvious, and the
discrepancies are undoubtedly (1) in part the results of the appreciation
of certain truths, and their exaggeration at the expense of others, and to
the neglect of the consequences flowing from that cause, and (2) partly of
psychological prejudices.

It is a well-assured truth that the Dipnoans are the fishes most nearly
related to the Batrachians, and consequently, if nothing else were to be
considered, they should undoubtedly be placed next to them. But if this,
per se, would be a satisfactory procedure, the problem then arises, what
shall be done with the other forms ? If the Dipnoans are at one extreme
and the Leptocardians at the other, between them must necessarily inter
vene the typical fishes as well as the true Ganoids and the Elasmobran-
chiates. And if, now, the question of the relative position of the Dipnoans
be properly settled, the equally important one — and more vital one on ac
count of the numbers involved — recurs, are we any nearer the truth in ap
proximating next to the Dipnoans, the Elasmobranchiates, the Ganoids,
and finally the Teleosts, which last will be next to the Marsipobranchiates ?
October, 1872. 3

XXXIV

Or, is the question rendered any more easy by first assuming that the Elas-
mobranchiates are " highest" and therefore (but why ?) next to the Batra-
chians, and then successively arranging the Ganoids, and the Teleosts, still
retaining the last nearest to the Marsipobranchiates ? Admitting that the
Dipnoans and (causa argumenti} the Elasmobranchiates are the nearest
allies of the Batrachians, are the Teleosts the nearest allies of the Marsi
pobranchiates ? Are they in any essential respect more like them than are
the others ? Does the study of their homologies receive any light from
the juxtaposition ? Is any advantage gained ? ' On the contrary, are not
the questions remaining still more involved by reason of such sequence ?
Is not the natural sequence from the generalized to the specialized unna
turally interrupted and reversed ? The answers are not dubious.

Again recalling the universal admission of the " low" or, rather, genera
lized attributes of the Leptocardians, we have in the ciliated clefts of their
pharyngeal sack the first (known) rudiments of a specialized branchial
apparatus ; an enormous advance is exemplified in the branchial apparatus
of the Marsipobranchiates (1. Hyperotreti, 2. Hyperoartii) which never
theless is (it may be safely said) obviously homologous — i. e, homogenetic —
with that of the Leptocardians ; another advance, less but still very de
cided, is exhibited in the branchial apparatus of the Elasmobranchiates,
while in the Chondrostean and other Ganoids successively, more specialized
phases are developed, and all in the direction of the Teleosts. We have,
in these phases, an apt exemplification of the same concentration towards
and in the head as is exhibited by the Tetradecapod and Decapod Crusta
ceans in their segments and appendages, and which have furnished to the
learned Dana the first foundations for his hypothesis of cephalization.
And from whatever standpoint we view the series of fishes, the facts of
structure, of homologies, and of affinities receive the most light by their
exhibition in the sequence advocated, i. e., Leptocardia, Marsipobranchia,
Pisces elasmobranchii, Pisces ganoidei, and Pisces teleostei.

And while most naturalists would probably not be indisposed to admit
the natural character of the sequence up to the Dipnoans, the desire to
have those forms in juxtaposition to the Batrachians and an exclusiveness
of attention to that question might result in cutting the gordian knot by
effecting that juxtaposition and practically ignoring the other difficulties.1

Two questions are principally involved in this consideration.

First. What is the fish most nearly to the Batrachians, and consequently
to the quadruped vertebrates generally ?

1 Probably some of the results in systematic zoology are attained by (1) commencing
with Man as the highest, and then (2) approximating successively certain forms, on
account of real or supposed affinities, and with little care as to where other forms-,
whose affinities are less obvious, may lead.

XXXV

Second. To what other forms is thatj^s/i most nearly related ?

(1.) In response to the first question, no doubt has been expressed, the
admission that the Dipnoans (and a fortiori the Lepidosirenids) are most
nearly allied to the Batrachians being universal, even among those who
place in the " highest" rank the Elasmobranchiates.

(2.) In response to the second question, the admission (now universal)
that the Dipnoans are fishes determines the question that they are to be
treated as fishes, and collocated in the series of fishes.

And now, if it becomes necessary to enumerate the forms of animals in
a linear series, there are the alternatives of doing so at the expense of one
or the other classes, for (it is scarcely necessary to add) a linear series can
not exhibit all the affinities of living beings.

But it being admitted that the Dipnoans are Fishes, it would surely be
unreasonable to overturn the natural series of the latter only to exhibit
representatives thereof in juxtaposition to the Batrachians. The alterna
tive then remains to accommodate ourselves to the facts of the case, to
build upon the sure foundations furnished by the concurrent admission of
what are the most generalized types, and then successively approximating
whatever forms are most nearly related to the preceding, and without ne
cessary consideration of where we may end — for, commencing aright, we
cannot wander very far from the right path.

And if it is admitted that the sequence up to the Dipnoans is not an
unnatural one, we have chiefly to inquire what are the forms most nearly
related to them. It must be admitted that (among living forms) the
Crossopterygians are nearest related on one side, and the Batrachians on the
other, but the former in very much closer bonds than the latter. And with
this concession, we have next to inquire what are the most nearly related to
the Crossopterygians. And, in the direction of the Teleosts, it can scarcely
be denied that the Hyoganoids are such forms. The relations of the last to
the Teleosts are so obvious that it is unnecessary to proceed further.

And if it be demanded, how then can the facts be best expressed ? refer
ence may be made to the genealogist. He has to deal with similar prob
lems so far as linear sequence is concerned, and the methods employed by
him may be advantageously adapted in biological taxonomy.

Let the Dipnoan be considered as the eldest representative of the an
cestral stock equally of the Fishes and of the Batrachians, from which the
respective forms have descended, diverging more and more in the course
of time. Of course, the Dipnoan will be more nearly related to the Ba
trachians than the Fishes diverging from the same stem — as the grand
parent is more nearly related to the children of two sons than such grand
children by the different sons are to each other.

But the genealogist takes the eldest branch of the family, and continues

xxxvi

to project the series formed by the representatives thereof till it is ex
hausted, and then recommences with the next.

In like manner, may we take, as the quasi-eldest, the form most like (in
essential features) the most generalized type, and continue the series till it
is exhausted.

Applying the hint to the problem under consideration, we may take the
Crossopterygian as the most nearly related to the Dipnoan, and the repre
sentative of the quasi-eldest branch, and continue the series by the succes
sive juxtaposition of the forms next most allied till the pisciform series is
exhausted. Then may we resume the broken thread, and recommence from
the same ancestral stock with the quasi-younger branch, the Batrachian,
and treat it in the same manner. In this way, the natural sequence of
types would be preserved, and the least confusion engendered.

And almost all the doubt and obscurity that reign over such questions
result from the confusion between the terms high and low with generalized
and specialized.

Inasmuch, for example, as the Dipnoan is (1) the most generalized, and
therefore (2) more nearly related to the Batrachian than the typical fishes,
because (1) of that nearer affinity, and (2) the recognition of the quadru
ped type as " highest," it is called "higher" than the fishes.

Perhaps there are no words in science that have been productive of more
mischief and more retarded the progress of biological taxonomy than those
words, pregnant with confusion, HIGH and Low, and it were to be wished
that they might be erased from scientific terminology. They deceive the
person to whom they are addressed ; they insensibly mislead the one who
uses them. Psychological prejudices and fancies are so inextricably associated
with the words that the use of them is provocative of such ideas. The
words -generalized and specialized, having become almost limited to the
expression of the ideas which the scientific biologist wishes to unfold by
the other words, can with great gain be employed in their stead.

TELEOST SERIES.

TELOCEPHALI.

Among the most generalized of the typical fishes, and which have been
by common consent regarded as most nearly allied to the Ganoids, are the
physostomous Teleocephals, best known under the forms of the Cypri-
nids, Clupeids, and Salmonids. With these, the Pikes, Scomberesocids, and
Perches, and, in fact, all those forms most familiar to men at large, nume
rous as they are, appear to agree in all material respects as to skeletal
peculiarities and the character of the brain. With the reservations already

xxxvii

(p. 00) made and those of like character, it may be said that a general1
description of the skull and shoulder girdle of a cod, a perch, a mullet, a
pike, a salmon, or an electrical eel would almost equally well apply to the
one as to the other, or any other Teleostean fish, so far as the simple
number and essential connections of the bones are concerned. The frontal
bones may be single or double, the anterior sphenoid (Cuv.) may be pre
sent or absent, the palatine and pterygoid bones may be distinct, or (as
in the electrical eel) in part fused together, the scapular arch may be
attached by one or two processes to the skull, a mesocoracoid may or
may not be persistent, and even the paraglenal bones may be quasi-car
tilaginous, but the agreement in other respects is so close in contrast with
the representatives of other orders, that the exigencies of classification
seem to be best met by the union of all such in one order. In all, the
deviations in the skull are comparatively slight, and the scapular arch
is composed of a post-temporal and posterotemporal, the latter connecting
with the proscapula, while the paraglenal or coracoid is differentiated into at
least a hypercoracoid and a hypocoracoid, the latter two bearing the acti-
nosts which are generally four or (rarely) five in number. With the postero
temporal or proscapula is connected a " postclavicle" from which is gene
rally developed a second distal bone, and sometimes (in Clupeidae) several.
The brain, heart, and vascular system generally, and hyo-branchial appa
ratus are fundamentally similar, but exhibit (especially the last) minor
modifications that indicate narrower differences, and that may be used in
the distinction of inferior groups. For all the forms possessing the common
characters alluded to, may be retained the ordinal name TELEOCEPHALI,
already referred to.

If a typical physostome fish (e. g., Clupeid) and a specialized physoclyst
form (e.g., Perca, Blennius) are contrasted, the differences certainly appear
to be considerable, and are exhibited in (1) the presence or absence of a
ductus pneumaticus, (2) the position of ventrals, abdominal or anterior, (3)
the presence or absence of a mesocoracoid, (4) the junction of the parietals,
or their separation by the intervention of the supraoccipital, (5) the pre
sence of articulated branching rays or their representation by spines, (6)
the low or comparatively high insertion of the pectoral fins, and (7) the
course of the lateral line, whether decurved in the direction of the abdomen
or curved in the direction of the back. But distinct as these forms appear
to be when contrasted, numerous forms intervene in which the characters
successively disappear, or are combined in different ways, and the most es
teemed differential characters (presence or absence of the ductus pneumati-

* I trust that the reservations and explanations which accompany this statement,
and the connection in which it occurs (the discussions of orders), may prevent me
from being misunderstood.

xxxviii

cus) are found in forms on the one hand so closely related (Cyprinodontids
vs. Synentognaths) and on the other so much differing from the next ad
joining forms, that the demands of classification appear to be best met by
their union in one order. Of that order, the typical physostome fishes are
among the most generalized.

But while the most generalized of the physostome Teleocephals seems to
have inherited and retained, in greater measure than any other forms, the
primitive characters of the common progenitors of the Teleost fishes, others
seem to present claims, but little inferior to theirs, to the rights of primo
geniture. It is, too, quite possible that proofs may yet be produced of the
superior rights of such claimants ; it may be demonstrated that on the whole,
such present more features in common with the ancient types than those
forms to which the rank is now conceded, and that the specialized charac
teristics which now exclude them, are not co-ordinated with other equally
specialized characters, and have not the significance they now seem to, but
so far as present evidence goes, the claims of the physostome Teleocephals
appear to be superior to those of any other forms.

But from an almost equally generalized stock, and without evidence of
very close relationship with any existing or known forms, the Scyphophori
and succeeding families seem to have sprung.

SCYPHOPHOBI.

The SCYPHOPHORI appear to be sufficiently differentiated from the phys-
tomous Teleocephali by the characters assigned by Cope, as well as other
details of the skeleton, and the structure of the brain. On the whole, they
appear to be most nearly related among the Teleocephali to the Gymnonoti.

NEMATOGNATHI.

The NEMATOGNATHI depart still further from the ordinary Teleocephalous
type in the composition of the skull, and especially the union inter se of
various elements, as well as in the shoulder girdle, while the peculiar
development of the brain confirms the validity of the separation. Their
nearest relations appear to be with the Scyphophori. The nearer affinities
claimed to exist between them and the Ganoids are not evident, and even
the union of the paraglenal elements is probably the result of coalescence
rather than of primitive homogeneity, such as prevails among the Ganoids.

APODES.

The APODES are much diversified among themselves, and have been dis
membered by Prof. Cope into several orders, but they have the same com
mon form and greatly increased number of vertebra, want of ventrals,
simple structure of the rays of the fins, restricted branchial apertures, and

XXXIX

(e. g. Synbranchus, Anguilla, Mur&na), similar brain, so that in default
of sufficient opportunity to study the skeleton,1 the author provisionally,
at least, retains them united, but admitting Cope's orders as suborders.
Their affinities through the more generalized forms of the order are pos
sibly with the Gymnonoti, but the hints furnished by the elongated body
and increased number of vertebrae, etc., may be illusive.

OPISTHOMI.

The Notacanthidse and Mastacembelidse have recently been widely sepa
rated,2 and by Cope, an order (Opisthomi) has been established for the last,3
but, as long ago shown by Johannes Miiller, both the forms in question
agree in the withdrawal of the shoulder girdle from the skull, and its con
nection with the vertebral column, and this character seems sufficient, asso
ciated as it is with general agreement in other respects between the two
families and great dissimilarity from other fishes, to isolate the forms thus
marked as a peculiar order ;4 for this order, the name OPISTHOMI, pro
posed by Cope for one of its members, will be very appropriate, and may
be adopted for the enlarged group. It is not obvious what better place
can at present be assigned to them than proximity to the Apodes, although
it will probably be eventually found to have closer relations with other
forms.

HEMIBEANCHIL

The order HEMIBRANCHII, framed by Cope for the group here adopted,
seems to be also well worthy of recognition ; and, in addition to the char
acters assigned by its founder, is distinguished (i. e., Gasterosteidse, Fis-
tulariidse) by the structure of the shoulder girdle and the skull, as shown
by Parker in the case of the Gasterosteidse (Shoulder Girdle, p. 39). 3
The nearest relations, according to Cope, are apparently with the Atheri-
nidae, but such are not obvious, nor are they more so with the Siphonog-
natMdae, with which they have also been in part compared.

LOPHOBRANCHII.

The order LOPHOBRANCHII, according to Prof. Cope, is most nearly related
to the Hemibranchii, and such appears to be probable ; some members of
the order Hemibranchii (Fistulariidse) had, indeed, been long previously

1 I have only been able to study the osseous structure of Anguilla and Murcena.

2 See Griinther, Cat., v. 3, Syst. Synopsis, pp. viii. x.

3 No reference is made by Prof. Cope to the Notacanthidae in any connection.

4 Of course, Tetragonurus, which Miiller, who was unacquainted with it, hinted
might belong here, has no relation with the group.

5 Before I was aware of the peculiarities of the shoulder girdle,- and only knowing
the characters assigned to the order by Cope, I retained it in the order Teleocephali.

placed in juxtaposition to the Lophobranchii (e. g. by J. E. Gray, Whit*?,
and Canestrini), but, no sufficient reason having been given or being ap
parent, the collocation has been disregarded.

The order (at least after the exclusion of the family of the Pegasiclse) has
been almost universally admitted. The Pegasidae have been eliminated
and raised to ordinal rank by A. Dumeril, with the name HYPOSTOMTDES;
associated with the ordinary fishes by Steenstrup and Giinther; and referred
to the order Hemibranchii by Cope. Having seen only alcoholic specimens,
and no skeleton of this form, the author has not been able to form an
opinion.

PLECTOGTTATHI.

The order of PLECTOGNATHI has been almost as universally admitted as
the former, but has been criticized by M. C. Dareste,1 and stated to be an
unnatural association, whose members had diverse relations.

The fishes combined under this name by Cuvier have, however, many
characters in common, and are distinguished by the fusion of the several
elements of the lower jaw (dentary, angular, and articular) into one ; the
intermaxillaries and supramaxillaries are more or less closely united ; the
interoperculum is reduced to a rod-like element, dissevered from connec
tion with the other bones, advanced far forward, and connected by ligament
with the lower jaw; the pre-operculum and operculum are articulated with
the hyomandibular bone, and the latter, as well as the sub-operculum, are
very much reduced in size. The post-temporal unites, more or less inti
mately, with the skull; the hypo-coracoid is extended downwards. The
brain, vascular system, and closed air-bladder do not differ very much from
those of the acanthopterygian fishes.

DARESTE (CAMILLE). Theses soutenues devant la Faculte des Sciences de Paris, par
M. Camille Dareste, Liceucie es-sciences naturelles, Docteur en medecine, Profes-
seur d'Histoire naturelle au College Stanislas. — Premiere These. Recherches sur
la classification des Poissons de Pordre des Plectognathes. — Examen de le place
que doit occuper dans la classification 'le Poisson decrit par S. Volta, sous le nom
de Blochius longirostris. — Paris. Imprimerie de L. Martinet, .... 1850. [4to.,
46 pp.]

Recherches sur la classification des poissons de 1'ordre des Plectograthes.

. . • < Annales des Sciences Naturelles. — Zoologie, 3e Serie, t. 14, 1850, p. 105
-133.

Sur les affinites naturelles des poissons de la famille des Balistes. Note de

M. C. Dareste, presentee par M. Blanchard. < Comptes Rendus hebdomadaires
des seances de 1'Academie des Sciences, (Paris), v. 74, pp. 1527-1530. (17 Juin,
1872).

On the Natural Affinities of the Balistidse. < Annpls and Magazine of Natu
ral History. 4th series, v. 10, pp. 68-70, July, 1872.

A translation of the preceding.

xli

Some of these characters are diagnostic, that is, they distinguish the
forms from all others ; others may be shared with isolated forms of widely
separated groups; but the agreement of the "Plectognaths" among them
selves in the many common characters justifies their association together,
and the characters that are peculiar to them sanction their isolation as a
group.

Three well-defined groups exhibit the principal modifications under which
the fishes possessing these common characters are developed. They are
principally distinguished by the development of the scapular arch (the hy-
percoracoid is atrophied in the Gyninodonts), the degree of union of the jaws
and the dentition, and by the squamation. But while the external differ
ences between these forms are doubtless very considerable, they all share
the common characters above enumerated and other less salient ones, and in
view of this much nearer connection, in contrast with other forms, seem
most decidedly deserving of retention together, in contrast with other fishes,
whatever rank may be conferred on the group. Their differences sink
into comparative insignificance, when compared with their common charac
ters, and seem not entitled to more than subordinal value, while the group
of which they are constituents may be most aptly considered an order, as
has been done by almost all ichthyologists. The Scleroderms have fur
nished the chief basis for dissent as to the homogeneous character of the
order, and have been deemed more related to ordinary Acanthopterygian
types than to the other admitted Plectognaths And it is quite true that
they (and especially the Triacanthids) are much more similar to the ordi
nary fishes than are the typical Plectognaths. This, however, is quite
explicable by the supposition that they are the most generalized, and repre
sent the immediate line of descent, while the others are more specialized.
That the likeness, however, is superficial and illusive, is evident from the
disagreement from the types they must resemble in form, in anatomical
characters, and their agreement therein with the other Plectognaths, as
already indicated. Prof. Cope has considered the relations of the order
(through the Triacanthidse, on the one hand, and the Chaetodontidse and
Acronuridx on the other) to be most intimate with the Teleocephals at
the point indicated, and M. Dareste has contended that the Balistidse are
especially related to the Acanthuridse. As there seems to be no proof of
any nearer relations elsewhere, the hint furnished by the agreements induc
ing such belief may be followed in the arrangement and sequence of the
order as well as of the families constituting it.

PEDICTJLATI.

The only order adopted remaining for consideration is that of PEDICU-
LATI. The natural character of the association of forms combined therein
is obvious, and has never been questioned, and the comparatively slight

xlii

affinity with them of the Batrachids, which were formerly combined with
them, is now universally conceded. The chief problem with regard to
them, therefore, is confined to the question as to the taxonomic value of
the characters distinguishing them from other forms. In consideration of
the isolation of the group, the saliency of the characters distinguishing
them, and the disturbance their intrusion among the Teleocephals would
induce, they are distinguished by ordinal rank. Their relations are most
intimate with the Batrachoid and Blennioid forms, and doubtless they have
descended from the same common progenitors

GENETIC RELATIONS AND SEQUENCES.

In further explanation respecting the relations of the various forms, it
may be remarked that immediate sequence does not by any means neces
sarily imply immediate affinities. In view of the complex and manifold
relations existing, it is generally only possible in a linear arrangement to
indicate the nearest relations on one side. The most convenient mode of
arranging forms in a linear succession appears to be in series, — that is,
taking a number of types and arranging them successively, having regard
to the forms next most allied, till the series is exhausted ; and then recom
mencing anew with that series whose first member is most nearly allied
to one of the preceding : — in other words, following a genealogical system
and assimilating it to a scheme, where we would have a given ancestor,
and then (1) eldest son, (la) eldest grandson, (16) eldest great-grandson,
etc. ; and after giving all terms of such lineage, we would recommence
with the (2) second son and proceed with his descendants in like manner.

The arrangement to really express such relations or quasi-relations
would, however, demand a knowledge of fishes which no one now possesses,
and consequently no attempt has been made in this article to exhibit them;
frequently, indeed, the relations deemed most probable by the author
have been violated in deference to general opinion. But without going
into details, the following quasi-genealogical tree will convey the views
of the author respecting the relations of the major groups, the first table
exhibiting the relations of the more generalized orders, and the last of
the orders as well as suborders of the Teleost series. In all cases (except
the Vertebrates and Molluscoids), the branch to the left — major as well
as minor — indicates the supposed most generalized type of the two or
more springing or diverging from the same common stem : —

The names printed in largest capitals indicate branches ; those in smaller, classes
and subclasses ; and those in smallest, orders ; whilst suborders are printed in lower
case.

xliii

r-^TELEOST SEEIES (JJ7.— XXII.).

p

s 3

02

co

GANOID

SERIES.

LCANTHODEI (VII.).

1 CYCLOaANOIDJBA (XIII.).

1 — RHOMBOOANOIDZA (XIX.).

? CROSSOPTERYQII (XI.).
CHONDROSTEI (VIII.).

p BATRACHIA— REPTILIA.

I — -DIPNOI (X,).
-ACTINISTIA (IX.)

rMAMMALIA

LAVES.

g

I — P OSTRACOSTEI and HETEROSTRACI.
p- HOLOCEPHALI (VI.).

^— ELASMOBRANCHII. C p RAIAE (V.).

•HYPEROARTIA (III.). LJ

^— SQUALI (IV.).

-HYPEROTRETA (II.).

•LEPTOCARDII— ciBKHOSTOMi (ij.

. — APODES (XVIL).

II.
P OPIBTHOMI (XVZEL).

rC

NEMATOQNATHI (XVI.).

SCYPHOPHORI (XV.).

^ — Grymnonoti.
r — Evemtognathi.

j — Acanthopteri^ ! L

^Percesoces. — HEMIBBANCHII (XIX.)
— Synentognatbi.

'Haplomi.

— Physostomi.

n

-Anacanthini J

PHOBHANCniI (XX.).

xliv

On the assumption that the GYMNONOTI, the SCYPHOPHORI, and the
NEMATOGNATHI on the one hand, and the APODES on the other, are deriva
tives from the Physostome Teleocephals or their immediate progenitors,
they should, perhaps, be projected after the Teleocephals as successively
more differentiated offshoots, but for the present, at least, it is deemed
advisable to retain them in the customary position ; it is to be understood,
however, that they form a diverging line from the supposed common
stock, and hence the sequence adopted in the list of families.

In addition to the orders here mentioned, several others appear to be
represented by extinct fishes, but we are not sufficiently acquainted with
the details of their structure to introduce them with certainty in the sys
tem. It may be suggested, however, that one of the orders is constituted
of the PLACOGANOIDEI (when restricted to such forms as Pterichthyidas
and Coccosteidse) ; another is represented by the triassic and cretaceous
Ganoids with a persistent notochord, ordinary pisciform proportions, and
non-lobate pectoral fins, such as the Gaturidas. Further details respecting
at least the scapular arch and pectoral limb (probably erroneously restored,
for the latter, by authors) are requisite before their exact relations can be
understood.

FAMILIES.

The families have been much multiplied, and, it may be urged, unduly
so, and such may really be the case, but as analysis should precede syn
thesis, and as many of the more comprehensive families have either not
received diagnoses common to and at the same time peculiar to all their
constituents; or, in case of applicable diagnoses, the characters are of
suspicious value, it has been deemed best to isolate the groups as families,
and allow them to stand on their own merits. Several of the families
admitted (e.g., Gadiform, Labyrinthiciform, Scombriform, Perciform,
Siluriform), are, however, of very dubious value, and are only provi
sionally adopted and kept in prominence to attract future examination.

There will doubtless always exist more or less difference of opinion as
to the taxonomic values of groups, and all that can be hoped for is essen
tial concurrence of views as to the mutual relations of the various
groups and their respective degrees of subordination. Ichthyology has
not yet, however, reached that stage wherein even an approximate concur
rence in any of these points is possible ; and it is not to be wondered at
that the greatest difference of opinion should prevail with respect to
families. Much of this dissent is due to the fact that certain groups
stand isolated from others, and the relations inter se of the constituents
of such groups are so obvious and evidently suggestive, and contrast so
strongly with any other group that, although many and very marked dif-

xlv

ferences exist among the constituents, they are overshadowed by the
closer agreement as compared with other groups, and the tendency,
therefore, is to depreciate their value. The NEMATOGNATIII is a case in
point. The ordinal or even subordinal value of the group has been
admitted by few, and generally it is considered as a member of the " order
Physostomi," and as it is really a natural and homogeneous group and
strongly contrasts with any other, by many it has been endowed with only
family rank. Yet the internal and external differences existing within
its limits are very great, and really as obvious and by every analogy as
important as those which the mind has become habituated to consider as
of family value in other cases. And furthermore, the anatomical charac
ters differentiating the group from others are many, striking, and, as shown
by the extent of variation within other groups, very important. The
exigencies of classification, therefore, seem to demand in such a case
ordinal distinction, and then the constituents of the group naturally resolve
themselves into sections whose importance, not being weighed in bulk
against another family, can be appreciated, and the mind is prepared to
admit their superior value.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS, ETC.

Among those recent works mentioned in the bibliography or incidentally
in the introduction, he has been especially benefited by the memoir of
Prof. Cope, so often referred to. If he has sometimes found reason to
express dissent from that eminent naturalist, it is because the importance
of the memoir in question and the extensive knowledge of its author, have
induced him to review and weigh the evidence affecting the questions in
dispute. And the superior ability and learning of Prof. Cope appeared
to demand reasons for any dissent from his views.

In order to enhance the usefulness of the catalogue, references are made
to Dr. Giinther's " Catalogue of Fishes in the British Museum," that being
emphatically the vade-mecum for the working ichthyologist, and necessary
to be constantly referred to for identifications, verifications, or references.
In addition, in some cases, references are made to other publications, and
when the names repeated from such authorities are not recognized by or
are different from those employed by Dr. Giinther, or when they accompany
different groups, the reference to Giinther's work is generally abbreviated
and inclosed 'in parentheses after the primary reference, thus, " (G. iii., 200
-205)."

Specific acknowledgment is due to the greatest of Spanish naturalists,
Prof. Poey, of Havannah, Cuba, for his courteous attentions for many
years, especially manifested in the transmission, for my use, of the fishes of
Cuba, including many of the types of his new species j I am also indebted

xlvi

to him for the skulls and more or less of the skeletons of numerous species,
and among them of such forms as Polymixia, Scombrops, Etelis, Platyi-
nius, Brotula, Lucifuga, and the rarer forms of other families. I have
likewise, through the courtesy of the officers in charge, been able to make
free use of the Army Medical Museum.

Acknowledgments are also due to Mr. J. CARSON BREVOORT, of Brooklyn,
and to Prof. 0. C. MARSH, and Mr. OSCAR HARGER, of Yale College, for
the loan of books, and other bibliographical facilities.

In conclusion, the author begs to renew the assertion that the list is in
the strictest sense a temporary one, and merely preliminary to renewed
investigations, and that the sequence of families is not to be regarded
as the expression of the views of the author, except in part. The true
exposition of his present views respecting the system are embodied in the
preceding essay, and especially in the discussion of the sequence of forms.

Comparative diagnoses, embodying the chief anatomical characteristics
of the orders and suborders in analytical tables, had been prepared for an
appendix to this volume, but it has been finally deemed by the author best
to defer the publication to a future time, and until he has been able to ex
amine the anatomy of several doubtful forms. Immediate insertion is the
less called for inasmuch as the remarks in the course of this introduction
will suffice to give an idea of the characters of most of the larger groups
adopted.

FAMILIES OF FISHES.

CLASS PISCES.

SERIES TELEOSTOMI.

SUB-CLASS TELEOSTEI.

PLECTOGNATHI.

GYMNODONTES.

1. Orthagoriscidae Gymnodontes (Molina), Gthr.

viii, 269, 317.

2. Tetrodontidae Gymnodontes (Tetrodontina),

Gthr. viii, 269, 270.

3. Triodontidae Gymnodontes (Triodontina),

Gthr. viii, 269, 270.

OSTEACODERMI.

4. Ostraciontidae Sclerodermi (Ostraciontina)

Gthr. viii, 207, 255.

SCLERODERMI.

5. Balistidae Sclerodermi (Balistina), Gthr.

viii, 207, 211.

6. Triacanthidae Sclerodermi (Triacanthina),

Gthr. viii, 207, 208.

2

LOPHOBRANCHII.

SYNGNATHI.

7. Hippocampidae Syngnathidae (Hippocampi-

na), Gthr. viii, 153, 194.

8. Syngnathidae Syngnathidae (Syngnathina).

Gthr. viii, 153, 154.

SOLENOSTOMI.

9. Solenostomidae Solenostomidae, Gthr. viii,

150.

PEDICULATI.

10. Maltheidae Malthaeidae,Gill,P.A.N.S.Ph.,

1863,89. (G.iii, 200-205.)

11. Lophiidae Lophiidae, Gill, P. A.N.S.Ph.,

1863, 89. (G. iii, 178-182.)

12. Ceratiidae Ceratiidae,Gill,P.A.N.S.Ph.,

1863, 89. (G. iii, 205.)

13. Antennariidae Antennariidae, Gill, P. A. N. S.

Ph.,'63,89. (G.iii,182-200.)

TELEOCEPHALL

BfeTEROSOMATA.

14. Soleidae Pleuronectidae, Gthr. iv, 399,

462-504.

15. Pleuronectidae Pleuronectidae, Gthr. iv, 399,

401-457.

ANACANTHINI.

16. Macruridae

18. Fierasferidae

19. Ophidiidae

20. Brotulidae

Macruridae, Gthr iv, 390-

398.
17. Congrogadidae Ophidiidae (Congrogadina),

Gthr. iv, 370, 388-389.
Ophidiidae (Fierasferina) ,

Gthr. iv, 370, 381-384.
Ophidiidae (Ophidiina), Gthr.

iv, 370, 376-380.
Ophidiidae (Brotulina), Gthr

iv, 370, 371-376.

21. Brotulophididae Ophidiidae (Brotulina), Gthr.

iv, 370, 375.

22. Bregmacerotidae Gadidae, Gthr. iv, 326, 368-

369.
Gadidae, Gthr. iv, 326, 367-

368.
Gadidae, Gthr. iv, 326, 327-

364.
Gadidae, Gthr. iv, 326, 344-

346.
Lycodidae, Gill, P. A. N. S.

Phil., iv, 319-326.

23. Ranicepitidae

24. Gadidae

25. Merluciidae

26. Lyeodidae

ANACANTHINI? INCERTAE SEDIS.

27. Ateleopodidae Ateleopodidae, Gthr. iv, 318,

398.

28. Xenocephalidae, '

29. Ammodytidae

30. Gadopsidae

Anacanthini gadoidei (Ap
pendix), Gthr. iv, 399.

Ophidiidae (Ammody tina) ,
Gthr. iv, 384, 387.

Gadopsidae, Gthr. iv, 318. (D.
x-xi, 25-26. A. iii, 18-19.)

ACANTHOPTERI.

31. Cryptacanthidae

32. Stichaeidae

33. Xiphidiontidae

34. Acanthoclinidae

35. Chaenopsidae

36. Nemophididde

37. Anarrhicadidae

38. Cebidichthyidae

39. Blenniidae

(Blennoidea.)

Cryptacanthidae, Gill, Can.

Nat.,1865. (G.iii,206,291.)
Stichaeidae, Gill, P. A. N. S.

Phil. (Gthr. iii, 206, 280.)
Xiphidiontidae, Gill, Can. Nat.,

1865. (G. iii, 206, 285-291.)
. Acanthoclinidae, Gthr. iii,

297-298.
Chaenopsidae, Gill, An. Lye.

N. H. N. T., viii, 141-144.
Nemophididae, Gill, An. Lye.

N. H. N. T., viii, 138-141.
Anarrhicadidae, Gill, Can.

Nat.,1865. (G. iii, 208-211.)
Cebidichthyidae, Gill, P. A. N.

S. Phil., 1865. (G. iii, 206.)
Blenniidae, Gthr. iii, 206,

211-279.

40. Pataecidae Blenniidae, Gthr. iii, 206,

292-293.

(Batrachoidea.)

41. Batrachidae Batraehidae, Gthr. iii, 166-

177.

( Trachinoidea.)

42. Leptoscopidae Leptoscopoidae, Gill, P. A. N.

S. Phil., 1862, 501-505.

43. Dactyloscopidae Leptoscopoidae, Gill, P. A. N.

S.Phil., 1862, 501, 505-506.

44. Uranoscopidae TJranoscopoidae, Gill, P. A. N".

S. Phil., 1861, 108-117.

45. Trachinidae Trachinidae, Gthr. 11, 225,

232-237.

( Trichodontoidea.)

46. Trichodontidae Trichodontoidae, Gill, P. A. N.

S. Ph., 1861, 514. (G.ii,250.)

(Gobiesocoidea.)

47. Gobiesocidae Gobiesocidae, Gthr. iii, 489-

515.

48. Liparididae Cyclopteridae (Liparidina),

Gthr. iii, 154, 154-158.

49. Cyclopteridae Cyclopteridae (Cyclopterina),

Gthr. iii, 154, 158-165.

50. Platypteridae

51. Callionymidae

52. Gobiidae

6

(Gobioidea.)

Gobiidae (Callionymina), Gthr.

iii, 1, 138.
Gobiidae (Callionymina), Gthr.

iii, 1, 138-152.
Gobiidae (Gobiina), Gthr. iii,

1, 3-133, 152-153.

53. Triglidae

54. Agonidae

55. Cottidae

(Cottoidea.)

Triglidae (Cottina gen.+Cata-

phracti gen.), G.ii, 191-210,

216-224.
Triglidae (Cataphracti gen.),

Gthr. ii, 211-216.
Triglidae (Cottina), Gthr. ii,

152-175.

56. Platycephalidae Triglidae (Cottina), Gthr. ii,

176.

57. Hemitripteridae Triglidae (Scorpaenina), Gthr.

ii, 143.
Triglidae (Scorpaenina), Gthr.

ii, 95.
Triglidae (Heterolepidina) ,

Gthr. ii, 91-95.

58. Scorpaenidae

59. Chiridae

60. Scaridae

(Pharyngognathi.)

Labridae (Scarina), Gthr. iv,
65, 208-240.

7

61. Siphonognathidae Labridae (Scarina), Gthr. iv,

65, 243-244.

62. Labridae Labridae, Gthr. iv, 65, 69-208,

240-243.

63. Pomacentridae Pomacentridae, Gthr. iv,

2-64.

64. Cichlidae Chromides, Gthr. iv, 265-

316.

65. Embiotocidae Embiotocidae, Gthr. iv, 244-

251.

66. Gerridae Gerridae, Gthr. iv, 252-264;

(also, i, 339-354.)

(Labyrinthici.)

67. Helostomidae Helostom [idae] , Cope, Tr. Phil.

Soc. xiv, 459. (G. iii, 377.)

68. Anabantidae Anabantidae, Cope, Tr. Phil.

Soc. xiv, 459. (Gthr. iii, 372.)

69. Osphromenidae Osphromenidae, Cope, Tr. Phil.

Soc. xiv, 459. (Gthr. iii, 382.)

(Polynematoidea.)

70. Polynemidae Polynemidae, Gthr. ii, 319-

333.

(Acronuridae.)

71. Acanthuridae Acronuridae, Gthr. iii, 325-

356.

72. Amphacanthidae Teuthididae, Gthr. iii, 313-

324.

( Chaetodontoidea.)

73. Toxotidae

74. Chaetodontidae

75. Ephippiidae

76. Xiphiidae

77. Triehiuridae

78. Scombridae

79. Carangidae

80. Drepanidae

81. Coryphaenidae

82. Nematistiidae

83. Stromateidae

84. Zenidae

Squamipennes (Toxotina) ,

Gthr. ii, 66-68.
Squamipennes (Chaetodonti-

na), Gthr. ii, 1, 3-57.
Squamipennes (Chaetodonti-

na), Gthr. ii, 1, 57-62.

(Scombroidea.)

Xiphiidae, Gthr. ii, 511-

512.
Lepturoidae, Gill, P. A. N. S. Ph. ,

1863,224. (G.ii, 342-349.)
Scombridae, Gill, P. A. N. S. Ph.,

1862, 124. (G. ii, 349-373.)
. Carangidae, Gill, P. A. N". S. Ph.,

1862, 430. (G. ii, 419-485.)
Squamipennes (Drepane) ,

Gthr. ii, 1, 62.
Scombridae (C oryphaenina

pt), Gthr. ii, 404.
Nematistiidae, Gill, P. A. N.

S. Phil., 1862, 258.
Scombridae (Stromateina) ,

Gthr. ii, 397-404.
Zenidae, Gill, P. A. N. S. Phil.,

1862,126. (G.ii, 393-396.)

85. Pteraclididae

86. Bramidae

87. Lamprididae

88. Dianidae

89. Kurtidae

90. Capridae

91. Nomeidae

Scombridae (Coryphaenina) ,

Gthr. ii, 410.
Scombridae (Coryphaeninu) ,

Gthr. ii, 408.
Scombridae (Coryphaenina) ,

Gthr. ii, 415.
Scombridae (Coryphaenina) ,

Gthr. ii, 413.
Carangidae (Kurtina), Gthr.

ii, 508-510.
Carangidae (Carangina), Gthr.

ii, 495.
Scombridae (Nomeina), Gthr.

ii, 387.

(Sillaginoidea.)

92. Sillaginidae

Sillaginoidae, Gill, P. A. N. S.

Phil., 1861, 501-507.
93. Chaenichthyidae Chaenichthyoidae, Gill, P. A.

N. S. Phil., 1861, 507-510.
Harpagiferoidae, Gill, P. A. N.

S. Phil, 1861, 510-512.
Notothenioidae, Gill, P. A. N.

S. Phil., 1861, 512-522.
Bovichthyoidae, Gill, P. A. N.

S.Ph.,1861,514. (G.ii,225.)
Latiloidae, Gill, P. A. N. S. Ph.,

1861,514. (G.ii, 359-361.)

94. Harpagiferidae

95. Nototheniidae

96. Bovichthyidae

97. Latilidae

10

(MuUoidea.)

98. Mullidae Mullidae Gthr. i, 397-

411.

(Polymixoidea.)

99. Polymixiidae Berycidae (Polymixia), Gthr.

i, 8 (16-19).

(Berycoidea.)

100. Monocentridae Berycidae, Gthr. i, 8 (8-

12).

101. Berycidae Berycidae, Gthr. i, 8 (12-

50).

(Sciaenoidea.)

102. Sciaenidae Sciaenidae, Gthr. ii, 265-

318.

(Percoidea.)

103. Sparidae Sparidae (Cantharina, Sargina,

Pagrina), Gthr. i, 412.

104. Pimelepteridae Sparidae (Pimelepterina),

Gthr. i, 497.

105. Maenididae Pristipomatidae, Gthr. i, 272.

(In part.)

106. Pristipomatidae Pristipomatidae, Gthr. i, 272.

(In part.)

107. Centrarchidae Centrarchoidae, Gill, Am. J. S.

& A., (2s), xxxvii, 92.

11

108. Serranidae Percidae (Serranina), Gthr. i,

51, 81.

109. Percidae Percidae (Percina), Gthr. i,

51, 58.

110. Centropomidae Percidae (Centropomus), Gthr.

i, 51, 79.

(Pliysodysti incertae sedis.)
(Pegasoidea.]

111. Pegasidae Pegasidae, Gthr. viii, 146-

149.
(Priacanthoidea.)

112. Priacanthidae Percidae (Priacanthina), Gthr.

i, 215.
(ffoplegnathoidea.)

113. Hoplegnathidae Hoplegnathidae, Gthr. iii,

357-358.
(Ndndidae Gthr.)

114. Nandidae Nandidae (Nandina), Gthr. iii,

362, 367-369.

115. Plesiopidae Nandidae (Plesiopina), Gthr.

iii, 362, 363-366.
(Polycentridae.)

116. Polycentridae Polycentridae, Gthr. iii, 370-

371.
(Oirrhitidae.)

117. Cirrhitidae Cirrhitidae, Gill, P. A. N. S.

Phil., 1862, 102-124.

12
(Acanthopterygii, § ii, Gthr.)

118. Aphredoderidae Aphredoderidae, Gthr. i,

271.

(Sphyraenoidea.)

119. Sphyraenidae Sphyraenidae, Gthr. ii, 334-

341.

(HJckeneidoidea.)

120. Echeneididae Scombridae (Echeneis), Gthr.

ii, 354, 376-385.

(Oxiidercidae.)

121. Oxudercidae Oxudercidae, Gthr. iii,

165.

( Comephoridae.)

122. Comephoridae . Comephoridae, Gthr. iii,

299.

(Acantkopterygyii, § iv, Gthr.)

123. Trachypteridae Trachypteridae, Gthr. iii, 300-

311.

(Acanthopterygii, § iii, Gthr.)

124. Lophotidae Lophotidae, Gthr. iii, 312.

(Luciocephalidae.)

125. Luciocephalidae Luciocephalidae, Gthr. iii,

390.

13
(Acantlwpterygii channiformes, Gthr.)

126. Ophiocephalidae Ophiocephalidae, Gthr. iii,

468-483.

(Acanthopterygii Uenniformes, § ii, Gthr.)

127. Trichonotidae Trichonotidae, Gthr. iii, 484-

485.

(Acanthopterygii Uenniformes, § i, Gthr.)

128. Cepolidae Cepolidae, Gthr. iii, 486-

489.

(Acanthopterygii gobiesociformes, § ii, Gthr.)

129. Psychrolutidae Psychrolutidae, Gthr. iii, 516-

517.

PERCESOCES.
(Cope, Tr. Am. Phil. Soc., xiv, 456, 457.)

130. Atherinidae Atherinidae (Atherinina),

Gthr. iii, 391, 392-406.

131. Tetragonuridae Atherinidae (Tetragonurina),

Gthr. iii, 391, 407.

132. Mugilidae Mugilidae, Gthr. iii, 409-

467.

HEMIBRANCHI.

(Cope, Tr. Am. Phil. Soc., xiv, 456, 457.)

(H. Gasterosteiformes.)

( Gasterosteoidea.)

14

133. Gasterosteidae Gasterosteidae, Gthr. i,

1-7.

134. Aulorhynchidae Aulorhynchoidae, Gill, P. A.

N. S., Phil., 1862, 233.

(Aulostomoidea.)

135. Aulostomidae Fistulariidae, Gthr. iii, 529,

535-538.

136. Fistulariidae Fistulariidae, Gthr. iii, 529-

534.

(H. Centrisciformes.)

137. Centriscidae Centriscidae Gthr. iii, 518-

524.

138. Amphisilidae Centriscidae, Gthr. iii, 518,

524-527.

SYNE;NTOGNATHI.

139. Belonidae Scomberesocidae, Gthr. vi,

233, 234-256.

140. Scomberesocidae Scomberesocidae, Gthr. vi,

233, 256-298.

HAPLOMI.

(Cope, Tr. Am. Phil. Soc., xiv, 452, 455.)
(Amblyopoidea.)

141. Amblyopidae Heteropygii, Gthr. vii, 1-2;

Putn., Am. Nat., vi, 6-30.

15

( Cyprinodontaidea.)

142. . Esocidae Esocidae, Gthr. vi, 226-

230.

143. Umbridae Umbridae, Gthr. vi, 231-

232.

144. Cyprinodontidae Cyprinodontidae, Gthr. vi,

299-356.

ISOSPONDYLI.

(Cope, Tr. Am. Phil. Soc., xiv, 452, 454.)

145. Characinidae Characinidae, Gthr. v, 278-

380.

146. Percopsidae Percopsidae, Gthr. vi,

207.

147. Haplochitonidae Haplochitonidae, Gthr. v,

381-382.

148. Galaxiidae Galaxiidae, Gthr. vi, 208-

213.

149. Osteoglossidae Osteoglossidae, Gthr. vii, 377-

380.

150. Notopteridae Notopteridae, Gthr. vii, 478-

481.

151. Halosauridae Halosauridae, Gthr. vii,

482.

152. Chauliodontidae Sternoptychidae (Chauliodon-

tina), Gthr. v, 383, 391-392.

153. Sternoptychidae Sternoptychidae ( — ), Gthr.

v, 383.

16

154. Stomiatidae

155. Scopelidae

156. Aulopidae

157. Synodontidae

Stomiatidae, Gthr. v, 424-

428.
Scopelidae (Saurina), Gthr. v,

393, 404-417.
Aulopidae, Cope, Tr. Am. Phil.

Soc.,xiv,455. (G.v, 393,402.)
Scopelidae (Saurina), Gthr. v,

393; 394-404.
158. Microstomidae Coregonidae, Cope, Tr. Am. Ph.

Soc., xiv, 455. (G. vi, 1.)
Salmonidae, Cope, Tr. Am. Ph.

Soc., xiv, 455. (G. vi, 1.)
Salmonidae (Salangina), G. vi,

1, 205.

159. Salmonidae

160. Salangidae

(Paralepidoidea.)

161. Alepidosauridae Scopelidae (Alepidosaurina),

Gthr. v, 393, 420-423.

162. Paralepididae Scopelidae (Paralepidina),

Gthr. v, 393, 418-420.

(Alepocephalidae.}

163v Alepocephalidae Alepocephalidae, Gthr. vii,

477.

( Gonorhynchidae.)

164. Gonorhynchidae Gonorhynchidae, Gthr. vii,

373.

166. Albulidae

167. Elopidae

168. Chanoidae

17

(ffyodontidae.)

165. Hyodontidae Hyodontidae, Gthr. vii,

375.

•

(Clupeidae.)

Clupeidae (Albulina), Gthr.

vii, 381, 468.
Clupeidae (Elopina), Gthr. vii,

381, 469.
Clupeidae (Chanina), Gthr.

vii, 381, 473.
169. Dussumieridae Clupeidae (Dussumieriina),

Gthr. vii, 381, 464.
Clupeidae (Clupeina), Gthr.

vii, 381, 412.
Clupeidae (Chatoessina), Gthr.

vii, 381, 406.
Clupeidae (Engraulina), Gthr.

vii, 381, 383.

(Chirocentridae.)

173. Chirocentridae Chirocentridae, Gthr. vii, 475-

476.

EVENTOGNATHI.

174. Catastomidae Cyprinidae (Catastomina),

Gthr. vii, 3, 12, 24.

175. Cyprinidae Cyprinidae, Gthr. vii, 3, 25-

339.

170. Clupeidae

171. Dorosomidae

172. Engraulididae

18

176. Cobitidae Cyprinidae (Cobitina), Gthr.

vii, 3, 344.

177. Homalopteridae Cyprinidae (Homalopterina),

Gthr. vii, 3, 340-343:

178. Kneriidae Kneriidae, Gthr. vii, 371-

372.

GYMNONOTI.
(Glanencheli, Cope, Tr. Ana. Phil. Soc., xiv, 455.)

179. Sternopygidae Sternopygidae, Cope, Tr. Am.

Ph. Soc., xiv, 455. (G.viii,!.)

180. Electrophoridae Gymnotidae, Cope, Tr. Am.

Ph. Soc., xiv, 455. (G.viii,!.)

SCYPHOPHORI.

(Cope, Tr. Am. Phil. Soc., xiv, 455.)

181. Mormyridae Mormyridae, Gthr. vi, 214-

224.

182. Gymnarchidae Gymnarchidae, Gthr. vi,

225.

NEMATOGNATHL

(Hypophthalmidae^ Cope.)

183. Hypophthalmidae Hypophthalmidae, Cope, op.

cit.xiv,454. (G.v, 66-68.)

(Siluridae, Cope.)

184. Trichomycteridae Siluridae (Opisthopterae), G.

v, 1, 272-277.

185. Siluridae

186. Chacidae

187. Plotosidae

188. Clariidae

189. Callichthyidae

190. Argiidae

191. Loricariidae

192. Sisoridae

19

Siluridae (— ), Gthr. v, 1, 30-

65, 69-220.
Siluridae (Chacina), Gthr. v,

1,29.
Siluridae (Plotosina), Gthr. v,

1, 23-27.
Siluridae (Clarina), Gthr. v,

1, 13-23.
Siluridae (Hypostomatina) ,

Gthr. v, 1, 225-230.
Siluridae (> Hypostomatina),

Gthr. v, 1, 222-225.
Siluridae (> Hypostomatina),

Gthr. v, 1, 230-265.
Siluridae (Hypostomatina) ,

Gthr. v, 262-265.

(Aspredinidae, Cope.)

193. Aspredinidae Siluridae (Aspredinina), Gthr.

v, 3, 266-270.

APODES.

ICHTHYOCEPHALL

(Cope, Tr. Am. Phil. Soc., xiv, 455.)
194. Monopteridae Symbranchidae (Symbranchi-

October, 1872.

na), Gthr. viii, 12, 14.

20

HOLOSTOMI.

(Cope, Tr. Am. Phil. Soc., xiv, 455.)

195. Symbrachidae Symbranchidae (Symbranchi-

na), Gthr. viii, 12, 14.

196. Amphipnoidae Symbranchidae (Amphipno-

ina), Gthr. viii, 12, 13.

ENCHELYOEPHALI.
(Cope, Tr. Am. Phil. Soc., xiv, 455.)

197. Muraenesocidae Muraenidae (Muraenesocina),

Gthr. viii, 19, 45.

198. Congridae Muraenidae (Anguillina),

Gthr. viii, 19, 23.

199. Anguillidae Muraenidae (Anguillina),

Gthr. viii, 19, 23.

COLOCEPHALI.

(Cope, Tr. Am. Phil. Soc., xiv, 416.)

200. Rataburidae Muraenidae (Ptyobran china),

Gthr. viii, 19, 90.

201. Muraenidae Muraenidae ( ), Gthr. viii,

19.

APODES? INCERTI SEDIS.

202. Chilobranchidae Symbranchidae (Chilobran-

china), Gthr. viii, 12, 17.

203. Nemichthyidae Muraenidae (Nemichthyina),

Gthr. viii, 19, 21.

21

204. Synaphobranch- Muraenidae (Synaphobranch-

idae ina), Gthr. viii, 19, 22.

205. Saccopharyngidae Muraenidae (Saccopharyng-

ina), Gthr. viii, 19, 22.

OPISTHOMI.

(Cope, Tr. Am. Phil. Soc., xvi, 456.)

206. Mastacembelidae Mastacembelidae, Gthr. iii,

539-543.

207. Nbtacanthidae Notacanthidae, Gthr. iii, 544-

545.

SUB-CLASS GANOIDEI.

SUPER-ORDER HYOGANOIDEI.
CYCLOGANOIDEI.

208. Amiidae Amiidae, Gthr. viii, 324-

325.

RHOMBOGANOIDEI.

209. Lepidosteidae Lepidosteidae, Gthr. viii, 328-

331.

SUPER-ORDER BRACHIOGANOIDEL
CROSSOPTERYGIA.

210. Polypteridae Polypteridae, Gthr. viii, 326-

328.

22

SUPER-ORDER DIPNOI.
SIRENOIDEI.

211. Lepidosirenidae Sirenoidei, Gthr. viii, 321-

323.

212. Ceratodontidae Sirenidae (Ceratodontina),

Gthr. Ph. Trans. R. S. 1871,
554.

SUPER-ORDER CHONDROGANOIDEI.
SELACHOSTOMI.

213. Polyodontidae Polyodontidae, Gthr. viii, 346-

347.

CHONDROSTEI.

214. Acipenseridae Acipenseridae, Gthr. viii, 332-

345.

SUB-CLASS ELASMOBRANCHII.

SUPER-ORDER HOLOCEPHALI.
HOLOCEPHALI.

215. Chimaeridae Chimaeridae, Gthr. viii, 349-

352.

SUPER-ORDER PLAGIOSTOMI.
RAIAE.

MASTICURA.

216. Myliobatidae Myliobatidae (Myliobatina),

Gthr. viii, 488-495.

23

217. Cephalopteridae Myliobatidae (Ceratopterina),

Gthr. viii, 488, 496-498.

218. Trygonidae Trygonidae, Gthr. viii, 471-

488.

PACHYURA.

219. Torpedinidae Torpedinidae, Gthr. viii, 448-

455.

220. Raiidae Raiidae, Gthr. viii, 455-

471.

221. Rhinobatidae Rhinobatidae, Gthr. viii, 440,

441-448.

222. Rhamphobatidae Rhinobatidae, Gthr. viii, 440,

440-441.

223. Pristidae Pristidae, Gthr. viii, 436-

439.

SQUALL

RHINAE.

224. Squatinidae Rhinidae, Gthr. viii, 430-

431.

GALEI.

225. Heterodontidae Cestraciontidae, Gthr. viii,

415-416.

226. Notidanidae Notidanidae, Gthr. viii, 397-

399.

24

227. Rhinodontidae

228. Cetorhinidae

229. Lamnidae

230. Odontaspididae

231. Alopeciidae

232. Sphyrnidae

233. Galeorhinidae

234. Scylliidae

235. Ginglymostomat-

idae

236. Crossorhinidae

237. Spinacidae

238. Scymnidae

239. Oxynotidae

240. Pristiophoridae

Rhinodontidae, Gthr. viii,

396.
Lamnidae (Selachina), Gthr.

viii, 389, 394.
Lamnidae (Lamnina), Gthr.

viii, 389, 389-392.
Lamnidae (Lamnina), Gthr.

viii, 389, 392-393.
Lamnidae (Lamnina), Gthr.

viii, 389, 393-394.
Carchariidae (Zygaenina) ,

Gthr. viii, 357, 380-383.
Carchariidae (Carchariina,

Mustelina), G. viii, 357-388.
Scylliidae, Gthr. vi, 400-

413.
Scylliidae, Gthr. vi, 400,

407-409.
Scylliidae, Gthr. vi, 400, 413-

414.
Spinacidae, Gthr. vi, 417,

418-425.
Spinacidae, Gthr. vi, 417,

425-429.
Spinacidae, Gthr. vi, 417,

417.
Pristiophoridae, Gthr. vi, 431-

433.

25

CLASS MARSIPOBRANCHII.

HTPEROAETIA.

241. Petromyzontidae Petromyzontidae, Gthr. viii,

499-509.

HTPEROTRETI.

242. Myxinidae Myxinidae, Gthr. viii, 510,

510-511.

243. Bdellostomidae Myxinidae, Gthr. viii, 510,

511-512.

CLASS LEPTOCARDII.
CIRROSTOMI.

244. Branchiostomidae Cirrostomi, Gthr. viii, 513-

514.

BIBLIOGRAPHY.

SUBJOINED is a synopsis of the great standard works of descriptive ichthyology,
which will give information as to the extent, price, etc., of the works in question,
and also some idea respecting the classifications adopted by their authors. The
information may be considered as a response to inquiries often made respecting such
subjects.

The work of Cuvier and Valenciennes was never completed, and. as will be per
ceived from the enumeration of contents, included only the Acanthopterygian and
Physostome Teleosts, and incidentally the Amioids whose relations were not recog
nized by Valenciennes. Cuvier only contributed the introduction and monographs
of families to the first ten volumes, his death having taken place in the year 1832.
Valenciennes only is responsible for the rest of the work.

The work of Dumeril may be considered as a complement to that of Cuvier and
Valenciennes. The death of the author has arrested the further progress of the
work.

The work of Dr. Giinther is the only complete repertory of the species of fishes
published, and, from its cheapness, the most available ; it is also subsequent to both
the preceding, and therefore in a certain degree supersedes them. No general index
has been published yet, but one is promised in connection with an appendix bringing
the subject up to date, if circumstances permit.

In order, further, to give some idea of the progress of Ichthyology, the titles are
given of all the compilations professing to describe the species of fishes known at the
periods of their respective publication. These compilations are valuable, however,
only to the historian of Ichthyology, and are worse than useless to any except an
expert in the science.

1738.

ARTEDI (Peter). Petri Artedi Sueci, Medici, Ichthyologia give opera omnia
de Piscibus scilicet: Bibliotheca Ichthyologica. Philosophia Ichthyologica.
Genera Piscium. Synonymia Piscium. Descriptiones Specierum — Omnia in
hoc opere perfectiora, quam antea ulla. Posthuma Vindicavit, Recognovit,
Coaptavit et Edidit Carolus Linnaeus, Med. Doct. & Ac. Imper. N. C. — Lugduni
Batavorum, Apud Conradum Wishoff. 1738. [8vo., five parts, viz: —
[v. 1.] Petri Artedi Angermannia-Sueci Bibliotheca Ichthyologica su Historia
Litteraria Ichthyologiae in qua Recensio fit Auctorum, qui de Piscibus scrip-
sere, librorum titulis, loco $• editionis tempore, additis judiciis, quid quivis
Auctor prsestiterit, quali method et successu scripserit, disposita secundum
saecula in quibus quisquis auctor floruit. Icthyologise Pars I. — Lugdunum
Batavorum, Apud Couradum Wishoff. 1738. [iv, 66, 2 pp.]

(27)

28

[v. 2. ] Petri Artedi Sueci Philosophia Ichthyologica in qua quiquid fundamenta
Artis absolvit: Characterum scilicet Genericorum, Differentiarum specijicarum,
Varietatum et Nominum Theoria rationibus demonstrator, et exemplis compra-
batur. Ichthyologiae Pars II. — Lugduni Batavorum, Apud Conradum Wishoff.
1738. [iv, 92pp.]

[v. 3.] Petri Artedi Sueci Genera Piscium. In quibns Systema totum Ichthy-
ologise proponitur cum Classibus, Ordinibus, Generum Characteribus, Specie-
rum Differentiis, Observationibus plurimis. Redactis Speciebus 242 ad Genera
52. Icthyologia Pars III. — Lugduni Batavorum, Apud Conradum Wishoff.
1738. [iv, 88 pp.]

[v. 4.] Petri Artedi Angermannia-Sueci Synonymia Piscium fere omnium ; in
qua recensio fit Nominum Piscium, omnium facile Authorum, qui urnquani
de Piscibus scripsere : uti Graecornm, Romanorum, Barbarorum, nee non omnium
inseqnentium Ichthyologorum una cum Nominibus Inquilinis variarum nationum.
Opus sine pari. Ichthyologiae Pars IV. — Lugduni Batavorum, Apud Couradum
Wishoff. 1738. [iv, 118, 22 pp.]

[v. 5.] Petri Artedi Sueci Descriptiones Specierum Piscium quos vivos praeser-
tim dissecuit et examinavit, inter quos primario Pisces Regni Suecise facile
omnes accuratissime describuntur cum non paucis aliis exoticis. Ichthyologiae
Pars V. — Lugduni Batavorum, Apud Conradum Wishoff. 1738. [iv, 102 pp.]

As indicated in the title of the "Genera Piscium" (v. 3), Artedi admitted into the
system 242 nominal species under 52 genera, but in this number are included the
Cetaceans, which were regarded as constituting an order of fishes named Plagiuri :
these being eliminated (14 species representing 7 genera), the number is reduced to
228 species and 45 genera, — to these, however, may be added 13 other genera indi
cated by him, — 5 in the supplement to the "Genera Piscium," and 8 in the
" Synonymia Piscium."

Artedi may be justly regarded as the father of modern Ichthyology, having intro
duced a precise terminology, full and pertinent diagnoses, and throughout uninominal
generic names. He first introduced consideration of the number of brauchiostegal
rays for distinctions of genera, etc. He distributed the true fishes into the orders
Malacopterygii (=Malacopterygii Cuv.-f-Syngna'thus, Stromateus, Anarrhicas), Acan-
thopterygii (=Acanthopterygii Cuv.), founded on the real or supposed structure of the
fins, Branchiostegii (a heterogeneous group based *on erroneous ideas), and Chondrop-
terygii (=Chondropterygii Cuv.)

The edition of the Genera Piscium published by Walbaum (1702) will be noticed
under the name of the editor who made the work the vehicle of a new compilation
of specific descriptions.

1740-1749.

KLEIN (Jacob Theodor). [1.] lacobi Theodori Klein Historic Piscium Naturalis
promoveudae missus primus de lapillis eorumqve numero in craniis pisciuui, cum
praefatione: de piscium auditu. Accesserunt I. Anatome Tursionum. II. Ob-
servata in capite Raise. — [Motto]. Cum figuris. — Gedani,Litteris Schreiberianis.
1740. [4to., 1 p. 1., 36 pp., 6 tab.]

[2.] lacobi Theodori Klein Historiae Piscium Naturalis promovendae missus
secuiidus do Piscibus per pulmonibus spirantibus [Celc] ad iustum nuinerum

29

et ordinem redigendis. — Accesserunt singularia: de I. Dentibus Balaenarum et
Elephantinis. II. Lapide Manati et Tiburonis. — [Motto]. Cum figuris. —
Gedani, Litteris Schreiberianis. 1741. [4to., 3 p. L, 38 pp., 1 1., 6 tab.]

[3.] Jacobi Theodori Klein Historise Piscium Natnralis promovendse missus ter-

tius de Piscibus per branchias occultas spirantibus ad justum numerum et
ordinem redigendis. Cum observationibus circa partes genitales Rajse maris,
et ovarium Galei. [Motto]. Cum figuris. — Gedani, Litteris Schreiberianis.
1742. [4to., 2 p. 1., 48 pp., 7 tab.]

[4.] Jacobi Theodori Klein Historise Piscium Naturalis promovendse missus

qvartus de piscibus per branchias apertas spirantibus ad justnm numerum et
ordinem redigendis. Horum series priraa cum additamento ad missum tevtium.
[Motto]. Cum figuris. — Lipsiae ; prostat apud Jo. Frid. Gleditschium ubi & reliqva
autoris opuscula. Gedani, Typis Schreiberianis. 1744. [4to., 3 p. 1., 68 pp. ,15 tab.]
[5.] Jacobi Theodori Klein Historise Piscium Naturalis promovendse missus
quintus et ultimus de piscibus per branchias apertas spirantibus. Horum series
secunda cum additionibus ad missus II, III, IV, et Epistola : de cornu piscis
carinse navis impacto. [Motto]. Cum figuris. — Gedani, Litteris Schreiberianis.
1749. [4to., 2 p. 1., 102 pp., 1 1., 20 tab.]

A remarkable work. It perhaps surpasses all other ichthyological publications in
incongruities between the definitions of groups and the contents thereof, and it is dif
ficult to conceive how some could have originated. The definitions themselves are
sufficiently clear, and their practical application to forms would not appear to be dif
ficult: the author however seems to have practically ignored his definitions of groups
when once framed, and to have proceeded, as some more modern naturalists have
done, by successive approximations of other forms to the types of his definitions, and
without checking the results by subsequent comparison with the latter. Judging
from the character of his various works, his analytical powers appear to have been
tolerably fair, but those of synthesis very defective ; this defect, an overwhelming
exclusiveness of attention to the special subject or idea for the moment under con
sideration, and a neglect to verify the results afterwards by comparison of all the
elements, vitiated his entire work : in addition, he appears to have labored under the
disadvantage of an extremely limited autoptical acquaintance with natural objects, a
certain stolidity and inaptitude for applying even that little knowledge to the inter
pretation of figures and descriptions,* and an unbounded trust in the reliability and
knowledge of others — except Linne". The stolidity was not sufficiently diluted. with
unintelligible rhetoric to be entitled profundity.

His classification is a strange one. In the first place, he distributes the fishes (in
cluding therewith the cetaceans) into primary groups distinguished (I) by lungs
(Cete), or (II) by gills (a) concealed or (6) apparent from the exterior. The true
fishes with concealed (/ills were then arranged according to the (1) position (lateral or
inferior) of the branchial apertures, and (2) the larger sub-division by the presence or
absence of (lateral) fins, and finally (3) by the number of branchial apertures. The
fishes with externally visible gills were distributed into general groups distinguished
by positive characters, and the remaining left in one marked by negative characters,
— that is, into groups "notable" for some character or other (as to (1), general form;
(2), snout; (3), eyes ; (4), armature; (5), breast or head ; (6), volubility of body),

* For example, he often failed to consider that in symmetrical fishes the lateral fins were double,
or present on both sides.

30

and then succeeded the residnum in which no very salient characters were developed,
and whose heterogeneous contents were classified by the number of the fins. But
while such was the case theoretically, practically it was quite otherwise, and fancy
urged the approximation to the types of his groups of forms on account of supposed
resemblances and in forgetfulness of the characters, and which, at another timei
under the influence of other ideas, he had referred elsewhere. The nominal species
thus scattered, in the several cases, were, however, severally derived from different
sources.

A few examples need only be given in demonstration of the truth of these criti
cisms. The Eels and Loaches (Cobitidae), having the branchial fissures very narrow,
were referred to the Fishes with concealed gills, but several species (e. g. Cobitidae,
3 sp.) reappear in the other section under the genus Enchelyopus, — the author, over
looking the character of the branchial apertures, having happened to be struck by
the resemblance of such forms as were depicted by other authors to certain species for
which he had more especially framed the genus : in like manner, species were dupli
cated under the genera Enchelyopus and Callarias, Enchelyopus and Leuciscus, and in
fact, almost every other genus with numerous species contained some that had been
referred elsewhere. In cases like Mastaccembehis, Psalisostomus, and Solenostomus,
distinguished — one, by the projection of the lower jaw ; the second by that of the
upper ; and the third by the tubular snout, it might be supposed a saliency of char
acter existed which would prevent grossly erroneous references, but it has not detained
our author from referring to them species entirely opposed in character. Another
mode of procedure is illustrated by the reference of forms to the group distinguished
by the "eyes." This was originally suggested by the Heterosomata distinguished by
the peculiarity of the two eyes on the same side, but our author has referred to the
same (distinguished by the eyes) two combinations of species (Rhombotides=Chasto-
dontidae pp. and Platiglossus, related to Julis) because, although having no distinct
ive character whatever in the eyes, he evidently fancied a resemblance between one
(Rhombotides) and Rhombus (Pleuronectidae), and the other (Platiglossus) and Solea.

The following abstract, selected from his work (Miss, v, p. 00), will give a fuller
idea of his system. The incongruity of his genera prevents a comparison with modern
types, except in a few cases.

PULMONIBUS spirantes sunt Physeteres. [Cete.] Blaser Missu II.

Spiraculis ad latera : Cynocephalus, Graleus, Pristis, Cestraeiom

H
1

BRANCHIIS

occultis
Missu III.

BRANCHIIS

1 apertis

Rhina [=SQUALI]; Batrachus; Crayracion, Capriscus [=PLEC-

TOGNATHI] ; Conger, Mursena [=APODES] ; Petromyzon.
Spiraculis in thorace: Narcacion, Rhinobatus, Leiobatus, Dasy-

batus [=RAIAE].

Forma: Balsenae formis. Missu IV. Fasc. i. Silurus.
Rostro: Fasc. ii. Acipenser, Latargus [=Anarrhicas], Xiphias,

Mastaccembelus [=Belone pp.], Psalisostomus, Solenostomus

[=Fistularia L. pp.], Amphisilen.
Oculis. Fasc. iii. Solea, Passer, Rhombus, Rhombotides s.

Europus, Tetragonoptrus, Platiglossus.
Armatura. Faso. iv. Cataphractus [=Triglidae pp.], Coristion,

Ceutriscus [=Gasterosteus-|-Centriscu3].
In sterno fy in capite. Fasc. v. Oncotion [=Cyclopterus], Eche-

neis.
Corpore volubili. Fasc. vi. Euchelyopus.

31

Pinnis

Missu V.

sunt 1 f TRIPTERDS, Fasc. vii. Callariag.

notabiles PSEUDOTRIPTERUS, Fasc. viii. Pelamys.

DIPTERUS, Fasc. ix. Trutta, Mullus, Cestreus, Lo-
brax, Sphyraena, Gobio, Asperulus, Aspredo,
Trichidion.
Dorsalibus. 4 PSECDODIPTERDS, Fasc. x. Glaucus, Blennus.

MONOPTERUS, Fasc. xi. Perca, Percis, Moenas,
Cicla, Synagris, Hippurus, Sargus, Cyprinus,
Prochilus, Brama [=Abramis], Mystus, Leucis-
cus, Harengus, Lucius.

PSEUDOMONOPTERUS, Fasc. xii. Pseudopterus [=
Pterois.]

518 nominal species (exclusive of the Cetaceans) were described under 61 genera,
127 being fishes with concealed gills, 177 having apparent gills and some "notable5*
feature, and 214 with apparent gills and without notable features.

. (1735) 1748-1768.

LINNE (Carl von). [1.] Caroli Linnsei, Sveci, Doctoris Medicinae, Systema
Naturae, sive Regna tria naturae systematice proposita per classes, ordines,
genera, & species. — 0 Jehova ! quam ampla sunt opera Tua ! | Quam ea omnia
sapienter fecisti ! | Quam plena est terra possessione tua ! [ Psalm, civ. 24. | —
Lugduni Batavorum, Apud Theodorum Haak. 1735. Ex Typographia Joanuis
Wilhelmi de Groot. [Fol., 7 1. unnumbered and unpaged.]

145 species of fishes are enumerated under 36 genera, besides 10 species of Pla-
giuri (Cete).

The only copy of the original edition, whose existence in the United States is
known to me, is in the library of J. Carson Brevoort, Esq., of Brooklyn.

The third edition, published in Latin and German by J. J. Lange, at Halle, in 1740,
is a reprint of the first.

A textual reprint of the first edition was also published in 1831, viz : — Editio prima
reedita, curante Antonio-Laurentio-Apollinario Fee, Pharm. Primar. in Schola Medic.
Militar. Insulensi ; Botanic. Professore. Academ. Medic. Reg. Socio, etc. [Psalm] —
Parisiis, Apud F. G. Levrault, Bibliopolam, via dicta De La Harpe, n. 81. Atque
Argentorati, via dicta Des Juifs, n. 33. 1830. [Svo., 2 p. 1., vi, 81 pp., 11.]

[2.] Caroli Linnsei Naturae Curiosorum Dioscoridis Secundi Systema Naturae in

quo naturae regna tria, secundum.[!] Classes, Ordines, Genera, Species, systema
tice proponuntur. Editio Secunda, Auctior. — Stockholmiae | Apud Gottfr. Kiese-
wetter. 1740. [8vo., 2 p. 1., 80 pp.]

182 species of Fishes are enumerated under 44 genera (88 to 131), besides 8 species
of Plagiuri (Cete) under 5 genera.

The fifth 'edition is a reprint of the second, and was published by M. G. Agnethler,
at Halle, in 1747 (8vo., 88 pp.) ; it contains the German names.

" [3.] Caroli Linnaei Medic. & Botan. in Acad. Upsaliensi Professoris Acad. Im-
perialis, Upsalieusis, Stockholmensis & Monspeliensis Soc. Systema Naturae ia
quo proponuntur naturae regni tria secundum Classes, Ordines, Genera & Species.
Editio quarta ab Auctore emendata fr aucta. Accesserunt nomina Gallica. —
Parisiis, Sumptibus Michaelis-Antonii David, bibliopolse, via Jacobea, sub signo

32

Calami aurei. 1744. Cum privilegio regis. [8vo., 3 p. 1. [Fundamenta Bota-
nica] xxvii, [1,] 108 pp., tab.]

This is said, by Linng, to have been edited by B. Jussieu, and to be the same as the
second edition ("per B. Jussieum. Adjecta nomina Gallica. idem cum 2"). It con
tains however, in addition to the "Fundamenta Botauica," a special introduction
(by himself), which concludes with the remark that it is the fourth edition, revised
and enlarged (Jam quartam castigatam iterum auctamque Lectori offero Benevolo. —
p. 3).

238 nominal species of Fishes are enumerated under 48 genera (85 to 129), in ad
dition to the Cetaceans (8 species under 5 genera).

In this edition (and certainly not in the second, as stated by Cuvier), the rays in
the fins were also first given for each species.

[4.] Caroli Linnaei Archiatr. Reg. Med. et Bot. Profess. Upsal. Systema Naturae

sistens Regna Tria Naturae, in Classes et Ordines Genera et Species redacta
tabulisque aeneis illustrata. Cum Privilegio S. R. M. Svecicse & S. R. M.
Polonicae ac Electoris Saxon. Editio sexta, emendata et aucta. — Stockholmios.
Impensis Godofr. Kiesewetteri 1748. [8vo., iv, 224 pp., 2 p. 1., 14 1., 7 pi.]

281 nominal species'of Fishes are enumerated, representing 47 genera (102 to 148),
and 12 Plagiuri (Cete) representing 6 genera.

The seventh edition, published at Leipzig (Lipsise) in 1748, is a textual reprint of
the sixth (Secundum sextam Stockholmiensem ernendatam & auctam editionem), by
the same publisher, but with the German popular names instead of Swedish.

The eighth edition contains the Vegetable Kingdom only.

[5.] Caroli Linnsei Archiatr. Reg. Med. et Botan. Profess. Upsal. Systema

Naturae sistens Regna Tria Naturae in Classes et Ordines Genera et Species
redacta tabulisque aeneis illustrata. Accedunt vocabula Gallica. Editio multo
auctior $• emendatior. — Lugduni Batavorum, Apud Theodorum Haak, 1756.
[Svo., 4 p. 1., 227 [+1] pp. [Index], 9 1., 8 pi., with 4 1. explan.]

This edition is recognized by Linne as the ninth, and said to have been edited by
Gronovius, and to be the same as the sixth, with very few additions respecting the
Birds and Fishes. ("Per Gronovium. Paucissima de Avibus, Piscibus, idem cum
6.") There is, however, a special address to the reader ("Lectori ") from the author,
in which he acknowledges to have followed the system introduced by Gronovius in
the "Museum Ichthyologicuui," the first volume of which appeared in 1754 ("Icthyo-
logiam vero secundum Membranas Branchiostegas & pinnarum radios compendiose
tali ordine proposui quali exstat in Gronovii Museo Ichthyologico, cujus nova detects
Genera hue intr,oduxi"). And on comparison, it is found that the sequence of the
genera is altogether different from that in the sixth edition, and essentially similar
to the one followed by Gronovius : it differs in the following respects : — the sequence
of orders is reversed, and the Plaguri added as the first order ; the Chondropterygii
different ; the sequence in the genera of orders (III) Branchiostegi and (V) Malacop-
terygii reversed ; and the following additional genera incorporated, viz: — 113, Gobius
and 114, Xiphias between 112, Blennius and 115, Scomber; 113, Ophidian* as tho
last genus of Acanthopterygii ; 144, Stromateus, in Malacopterygii, between 143,

* I hare demonstrated, in my memoir on the Affinities of several doubtful British Fishes ( <Proc. Acad
Nat. Sc., Phila., 1864, p. 198, &c.), that Ophidion was originally based on the Gunnell (Muraenoides
Lac.), and that the Ophidium imberbe of Montagu (not Pennant or Lacop&de) U the t>ame species.

33

Anarrhicas and 145, Pleuronectes, and 147, Coryphaena between 146, Ammodytes and
148, Echeneis.

286 species of Fishes are enumerated under 58 genera (102 to 159), exclusive of the
13 species of Cetaceans.

[6.] Caroli Linnaei Equitis De Stella Polari, Archiatri Regii, Med. et Botan.

Profess. Upsal. ; Acad. Upsal. Holmens. Petropol. Berol. Imper. Lond. Monspel
Tolos. Florent. Soc. Systema Naturae per Regna Tria Naturae, secundum
Classes, Ordines, Genera, Species, cum Characteribus, Differentiis, Synonymis,
Locis. — Editio Decima, Reformata. Cum Privilegio S:aeR:aeM:tis Suecise. —
Holmiae, Impensis Direct. Laurentii Salvii. 1758 [ — ] 1759. 8vo., 2 v., viz : —
Tomus I. [Regnvm Animale.] 2 p. 1., pp. 1-824. 1758.
Tomus II. [Regnvm Vegetabile.] 2 p. 1., pp. 825-1384. 1759.
In this edition, the binomial system, previously employed by him in the work
entitled Museum Tessinianum (1753), was extended in its application to all the
kingdoms of nature ; the Artedian classification of fishes, adopted in the earlier
editions, was superseded by the familiar Linnaean system, and the cetaceans were for
the first time eliminated from the class of fishes and grouped with the viviparous quad
rupeds under the new class name Mammalia.

A modification of far less merit was the separation of the Chondropterygii of Artedi
(exclusive of the genus Acipenser) and their combination, under the distinctive term
Amphibia Nantes, with the Reptiles. The Fishes thus restricted were distributed into
groups distinguished by the supposed structure of the branchiae (Branchiostegi), the
want of fins (Apodes), or their presence under the throat (Jugulares), at the thorax
(Thoracici), or behind (Abdominales).

414 species of Fishes (including the Amphibia Nantes) were admitted and arranged
under 57 genera.

This edition was reproduced at Halle (Halae Magdebvrgicae, Typis et Svmptibus lo.
lac. Cvrt. 1760), in an exact reprint (Prsefatvs est loannes loachimvs Langivs),
in 1760, but has not been acknowledged as one of the so-called editions.

The recognized eleventh edition was published at Leipzig in 1762, and is also a re
print of the tenth, but was condemned by Linne (Furtim prodiit vitiosa. Nil additum).

[7.] Caroli a Linne", Equitis Aur. de Stella Polari, Archiatri Regii, Med. &

Botan. Profess. Upsal., Acad. Paris. Upsal. Holmens. Petropol. Berol. Imper.
Lond. Angl. Monspel. Tolos. Florent. Edinb. Bern. Soc. Systema Naturae per
Regna Tria Naturae, secundum Classes, Ordines, Genera, Species, cum Character
ibus, Differentiis, Synonymis, Locis. Tomus ![-] III.— Editio Duodecimo,, Refor
mata. Cum Privilegio S:ae R:ae M:tis Sueciae & Electoris Saxon. — Holmiae,
Impens. Direct. Laurentii Salvii, 1766 [-] 1768. [8vo., 3 v., viz:—
Tomus I. [Regnum Animale. — Pars 1 : Mammalia. Aves. Amphibia. Pisces,
pp. 1-532. 1766. Pars 2: Insecta. Vermes. 1 p. 1., pp. 533-132^, 11 1.
1767.]
Tomus IL [Regnum Vegetabile. 736 pp., 8 1.] 1767.

" III. [Regnum Lapideum. — Appendix Animalium. Appendix Vegetabi-
lium. 236 pp., 10 1. 3 pi. folded.] 1768.
The last edition published by Linne".

The class Pisces was in this edition further restricted by the exclusion of the
Branchiostegi of Artedi (including the dismembered genera Tetrodon and Diodon"), and
the genera Centriscus, Syngnathus, and Pegasus from the Fishes and their conjunction

34

with the forms ejected in the tenth edition and the combination of all nnder the
Amphibia Nantes, which were subdivided into two groups distinguished by the
separated branchial chambers (Spiraculis compositis) or single apertures (Spiraculis
solitariis).

477 nominal species of Fishes (including the Amphibia Nantes) were described, and
referred to 61 genera. The additional genera were Amia, Slops (both founded
for fishes sent by Dr. Garden from South Carolina), Cepola, and Teuthis.

In conclusion, it may be said that the original editions recognized by Linn6 as
completely revised ones were theirs* (1735), the second (1740), the sixth (1748), the
tenth (1758), and the twelfth (1766-68).

The first was reprinted at Halle, in 1740, and the reprint recognized as the third ;
and again at Paris in 1830.

The second was reprinted at Paris, in 1744 (with modifications), as the fourth
edition ; and at Halle, in 1747, and the reissue was subsequently recognized as the
fifth edition.

The sixth edition was reissued at Leipzig, and subsequently known as the seventh ;
and closely followed in the edition of Leipzig, recognized as the ninth.

The eighth edition did not contain the Animal Kingdom.

The tenth edition was reproduced at Halle in 1760 (not recognized), and at Leipzig
in 1762, the last being acknowledged as the eleventh.

The twelfth edition was reprinted at Vienna, in 1767-70, and entitled the thirteenth,
but is not esteemed as one of the regular current editions.

The later thirteenth edition, in which Gmelin brought together descriptions of species
unrecognized by Linne and unknown to him, is noticed under the editor's name
(1788).

1770.

GOUAN (Antoine). Historia Piscium, sistens ipsorum Anatomen externam,
internam, atque Genera in Classes & Ordines redacta. Accedunt Vocabularium
locupletissimum, Indices latini ac gallici, Experimenta circa Motum natatorium
& muscularem, Respirationis mechanismum, Auditus & Generatioms organa.
Cum iconibus Genera nova ac prsecipuas partes Anatomicas exhibeutibus. Auc-
tore Antonio Goiian, Regis Consilario et .Medico ordinario, Professore Regio in
Ludovicaeo Monspeliensi, Societ. regiae Scient. Monspel. Sodali, regiae Scieut.
Humaniorum Litterarum et Inscriptionum Tolosanse Correspondent!, Academiae
Botanicse Florentine Socio honorario. — Argentorati. Sumptibus Amandi Konig,
bibliopolae, 1770. Cum privilegio Regis. —

OB,

Histoire des Poissons, contenant la Description Anatomique de leurs parties
externes & internes, & le oaractere des divers Genres range's par Classes &
par Ordres. Avec un Vocabulaire complet, des Tables raisonnees en latin &
en franqois, des Experiences sur le Mouvement natatoire et musculaire, sur le
mechanisme de la Respiration, sur les organes de 1'Oai'e et de la Generation,
& des Estampes qui representent les principales parties anatomiques &
quelques Genres nouveaux. Par Mr Antoine Goiian, • • • . — a Strasbourg, chez
Amand Konig, libraire. 1770. Avec privilege du Roi. [4to., xviii (doubled),
252 (1-228 doubled) -f [3] pp., 4 pi. folded.]
The text is in both Latin and French, corresponding on opposite pages.

35

The title of this work is misleading, as only the Genera of fishes are described.
The modifications introduced into the class by Linne" in the tenth edition of the
Systema Naturae (the exclusion of the Chondropterygii, less Acipenser and with the
addition of Lophius, and their union with the Amphibia) are adopted. Thus limited,
the genera are (1) combined according to the Artedian system, and (2) those com
binations then subdivided, with Linne, into groups distinguished by the want or
position of the ventral fins. The genera were quite well described, and three new
ones still retained in the System (Lepadogaster, Lepidopus, and Trachypterus} were
established.

1782-1795.

BLOCH (Mark Elieser). D. Marcus Elieser Bloch's, • • . , ausiibenden Arztes
zu Berlin, Oekononomische Naturgeschichte der Fische Deutschlauds. [Text,
4to. ; PL, obi. fol., 3 v. viz :—

[1.] Mit sieben und dreissig Kupfertafeln nach Originalen. Erster Theil. —
Berlin, 1782. Auf Kosten des Verfassers und in Commission bei dem
Buchhandler Hr. Hesse. [8 p. 1., 258 pp.]

[2.] Mit funf und dreissig Kupfertafeln nach Originalen. Zwieter Theil. —
Berlin, 1783. Auf Kosten des Verfassers und in Commission in der
Buchhaudlung der Realschule. [4 pi., 192 pp.]

[3.] Mit sechs und dreissig ausgemalten Abdrucken nach Originalen und einem
Titelkupfer. Dritter Theil. [==v. 2. 1784.]
The text is in 4to. ; the plates, in fol., without special titles.

D. Marcus Elieser Bloch's, ausiibenden Arztes zu Berlin, .... Naturges
chichte der auslandischen Fische. [Text, 4to. ; PL, obi. fol., 9 v. viz : —
[4.] Mit sechs und dreissig ausgemalten Kupfern nach Originalen. — Erster
Theil. Berlin, 1783. Auf Kosten des Verfassers, und in Commission in
der Buchhandlung der Realschule. [viii, 136 pp.]
[5.] [=v. 4.] Zweiter Theil. Berlin 1786. [=v. 4.— viii, 160 pp.]
[6.] Mit sechs und dreissig ausgemalten Kupfern nach Originalen und einem

Titelkupfer. Dritter Theil. Berlin 1787. [=v. 4, 5.— xiv, 146pp.]
[7.] Mit sechs und dreissig Ausgemalten Kupfern nach originalen. Vierter
Theil. Berlin 1790. Bey den Konigl. Akademischen Kunsthandlern J.
Morino & Comp. [xii, 128 pp.]

[8.] [=v. 7.] Funfter Theil. Berlin 1791. [=v. 7— viii, 152 pp.]
[9.] [=v. 7, 8.] Sechster Theil. Berlin 1792. [=v. 7, 8.— xii, 126 pp.]
[10.] [=v. 7-9.] Siebenter Theil. Berlin 1793. [=v. 7-9.— xiv, 144 pp.]
[11.] [=v. 7-10.] Achter Theil. Berlin 1794. [v. 7-10.— vi, 174 pp.]
[12.] Mit sechs und dreissig Ausgemalten Abdrucken nach Originalen. Neunter
Theil. Berlin 1795. Im Verlage der Moriuoschen Kunsthandlung. [iv,
192 pp.]

The nine parts of the last work (Natural History of Foreign Fishes) were
complementary to the first (Economical History of the Fishes of Germany), and
together formed a uniform series, afterwards entitled: —
Allgemeine Naturgeschichte der Fische.

The three volumes of the first work formed volumes I to III of the collection,
and the nine of the last, volumes IV to XII.
November, 1872. 6

36

— Icthyologie, ou Histoire Naturelle, generale et particuliere des Poissons.
Avec des figures enluininees, dessinees d'apres nature. Par Marc Elieser
Bloch, .... [Fol., 12 v., viz:—

[!E SERIE.]
[1.] Premiere partie. Avec 37 planches. — A Berlin, chez 1'auteur, et chez

Francois de la Garde libraire, 1785. [5 p. 1., 206 pp., 1 1., pi. 1-37.]
[2.] Seconde partie. Avec 35 planches. — [=v. 1.] 1785. [1 title, 170 pp.,

1 1., pi. 38-72.]
[3.] Troisieme partie. Avec 3G planches. — [=v. 2.] 1786. [1 p. 1., 160 pp.,

1 1., pi. 73-107.]
[4.] Quatrieine partie. Avec 36 planches.

A Berlin, ~) f 1'Auteur, & ? chez Frangois de la Garde libraire.

A Paris, ^ chez j Didot le jeune, • • • .

ALondres, ) ( White & Fils, .... 1787.

[1 p. L, 134 pp., 1 1., pi. 109-144.]
[5.] Cinquieme partie. Avec 36 planches.— [=v. 4.] 1787. [1 p. 1., 130 pp.,

1 1., pi. 145-180.]
[6.] Sixietne et derniere partie. Avec trente-six planches. — [=v. 4, 5.] 1788.

[1 p. 1. viii, 150 pp., 1 1., pi. 181-216.]

[2E SERIE.]

V V

[7.] Septieme partie. Avec 36 planches. — A Berlin, chez 1'Auteur. — A Leipzic
dans la Musee de Mr. Beygang et chez tous les libraires d'Allemagne,
1797. [1 p. 1. viii, 104 pp., 1 1., pi. 217-252.]
[8.] Huiteine partie. Avec 36 planches.— [=v. 7.] 1797. [1 p. 1. iv, 122

pp., 1 L, pi. 253-288.]
[9.] Neuvieine partie. Avec 36 planches. — [=v. 7, 8.] 1797. [1 p. 1., 110

pp., 1 1., pi. 289-324.]
[10.] Dixieme partie. Avec 36 planches.— [=v. 7-9.] 1797. [1 p. 1., v, 120

pp., 1 L, pi. 325-360.]
[11.] Onzieme partie. Avec 36 planches.— [=v. 7-10.] 1797. [2 p. L, 136

pp., 1 L, pi. 361-396.]
[12.] Douzieme partie. Avec 36 planches.— [=v. 7-11.] 1797. [1 p. 1. ii,

142pp., 21., pi. 397-432.]

A translation, by Laveau, of the preceding series.

A cheap edition of this work was published in " Suites a Buffon" (v. 32-41), with
the plates of Bloch, copied and reduced by J. E. Deseve, and under the following
title :—

Histoire Naturelle des Poissons, avec les figures dessinees d'apres nature par

Bloch. Ouvrage classe par ordres, genres et especes, d'apres le systeme de
Linue ; avec les caracteres generiques ; par Rene Richard Castel, ....
Second edition.— A Paris, chez Deterville, .... an X, [1802. 12ino, 10 v.,
with 1GO pi. 3e fid. Roret, 1837.— 26 fr. 20c. ; col. 47 fr.]

1787.

HAUY (Rene Just). Encyclopedie Methodique. — Histoire Naturelle. Tome troi-
sierne. Contenaut les Poisaons. [Anon.] — A Paris, chez Panckoucke, libraire,
.... A Liege, chez Plomteux, imprimeur des Etats. 1787 «... [4to., 2
p. 1. ix, 435 pp.]

37

This is a dictionary, in which the Linnrean orders (miscalled classes of orders),
genera, and species are described under their French names in alphabetical order.
Tabular synopses (each on a special page) are also given of the classes, genera, and
species under their French names, in connection with the descriptions. The work is
a very poor and imperfect compilation, by an author practically unacquainted with
Fishes as well as with the then recent literature of the subject. The following is
a complement to it : —

1788.

BONNATERRE (J • • . P • • •)• Tableau Encyclopedique et MSthodique des
trois regnes de la Nature, dedie et presente & M. Necker, Ministre d'Etat, &
Directeur general des Finances. — ICHTHYOLOGIE. — Par M. 1'Abbe Bonnaterre.
.... —A Paris, chez Panckoucke, libraire, .... 1788. .... [4to.,
vi, 215 pp., 2 (A, B) +100 pi.]

A poor compilation, arranged according to the Linnaean classification, by an in
dividual who was employed by Panckoucke, the publisher of the Encyclopedie
Methodique, to bring together the illustrations of the Mammals, Birds, Reptiles,
Fishes, and Insects. The compiler has availed himself of the works of most of the
authors preceding, and collected illustrations of more than 400 species.

GMELIN (Johann Friedrich). Caroli a Linne, Equitis anrati de stella polari,
Archiatri Regii, Med. et Botan. Profess. Upsal. Acad. Paris. Upsal. Holm.
Petropol. Berolin. Imper. Londin. Angl. Monsp. Tolos. Florent. Edinb. Bern. Soc.
Systema Naturae per regna tria Naturae, secundum Classes, Ordines, Genera,
Species, cum characteribus, differentiis, synonymis, locis. Tomus I. [ — ] III.
Editio Decima tertia, Aucta, Reformata. Cura Jo. Fred. Gmelin, Philos. et
Med. Doctor. Hujus et Chern. in Georgia Augusta Prof. P. O. Acad. Caesar.
Naturae Curiosorum et Electoral. Moguntin. Erfordensis, nee non Societ. Reg.
Scient. Goettingensis, Physicae Tigurin., et Metallicae Membri. — Lipsiae, 1788
-93. Impensis Georg. Emanuel. Beer. [8vo., 4120 pp., 3 v. in 9 parts, viz: —

The three volumes, being very much amplified, were divided into parts, with half
titles, for binding, viz : —

Tomus I. [Regnum Animale : pars i. (Mammalia; Aves, ordines 1-2), 6 p.l.,
pp. 1-500: pars ii. (Aves, ordiues 3-6), 1 p.l., pp. 501-1032: pars iii. (Am
phibia, Pisces), 1 p.l., pp. 1033 (Pisces, 1126)-1516: pars iv. (Insecta,
ordines 1-2), 1 p.l., pp. 1517-2224: pars v. (Insecta, ordines 3-7), 1 p.l.,
pp. 2225-3020: pars vi. (Vermes), 1 p.l., pp. 3021-3910: pars vii. (Indices),
1 p.l., pp. 3911-4120.] 1789.
Tomus II. [Regnum Vegetabile:] pars i., 1 p.l. xl, 884 pp. : pars ii., 1 p.1.,

pp. 885-1661.] 1791.

Tomus III. [Regnum Lapideum.j 476 pp., 3 pi. folded. 1793.
This edition is noticed under the date of 1788 and the name of Gmelin, as that
naturalist is alone responsible for the incorporation of the many species described
since the last edition of the Systema Naturse revised by Linne. The compilation
displays very little acquaintance with any branch of Zoology, and species are incor
porated into the system in defiance of the characters of the groups to which they
are referred. This is evidently the result of blind confidence in the accuracy and

38

powers of discrimination of those whose species were incorporated by him into the
System, as he did not hesitate to adopt their views as to generic relations, however
much the inherent evidence of their own descriptions might oppose their views. A
large numher of the species were thus repeated under different specific as well as
generic names. The number of nominal species was thereby increased to 826, grouped
under 65 genera, (150a) Stcrnoptyx, (1506) Leptocephalus, (155cr) Kurtus, (165a)
Scarus, and (170a) Centrogttster having been added to the Linnaean genera. Gmelin,
however, improved on the Linnsean system by the re-combination of the Amphibia
nantes with the Pisces, and he re-adopted the orders (V) Branchiostegi and (VI)
Chondropterygii. He erred, on the other hand, in separating Mormyrus from the
Abdominales and referring it to the Branchiostegi.

1792.

WALBAUM (Johann Julius). Petri Artedi Sueci Genera Piscium. In quibus
Systenia totum Ichthyologise propouitur cum classibus, ordinibus, generum char-
acteribus, specierum differeutiis, observationibus plurimis. Redactis speciebus
242 [228] ad Genera 62 [45]. Ichthyologise Pars III.— Eraendata et aucta a
lohanne lulio Walbaum, M.D., Societatis Berolinensis Naturae Curiosorum, et
Societatis Litterarise Lubecensis Sodali. Cum tabula senea. — Grypeswaldise, im-
pensis Ant. Ferdin. Rose 1792. [Svo., 4 p. L, 723 pp., 3 pi.]

A poor compilation, like Gmelin's, in which the various previously described
species were introduced without a critical study into the system, and described in
foot-notes in connection with the Artedian species, but combined under the Linnaean
genera. The nominal species (and many are only nominal), excluding the ceta
ceans, are thus raised from 228 to about 965, without counting the species enumerated
under the new genera ofauthorg appended to the volume. The compilation has some
value, not only on account of the original descriptions of species copied from previous
authors, but because of the reproductions of the descriptions of the new genera in
troduced by various authors into the system. It is also of interest to the student
of American species by reason of the incorporation therein, under specific names, of
anonymous American species described by Schoepf.

1798-1803.

LACEPEDE (Bernard Germain Etienne de la Ville-sur-Illon, Comte de).
Histoire Naturelle des Poissous, [v. 1] par le citoyeu La Cepede, membre de
1'Institut national, et Professeur du Museum de histoire naturelle. Tome pre
mier [-5]. — A Paris, chez Plassan, imprimeur libraire, Rue du Cimetiere Andre-
des-Arcs, No. 10. L'an VI de la Republique.— 1798. [— L'an XI de la Repub-
lique, i. e., 1803] [4to., 5 v.]

The title-page was modified in each volume, and the personal titles successively
increased in number ; the address of the publisher was changed (in v. 3-5) ; the last
volume (on title-page) was dedicated to his late wife ; and only the first volume
bears the date of the Christian era.

Originally published and frequently reproduced in connection with Buffon's works,
e.g., Buffon, 1st ed. (1749-84), v. 39-43; 1st 12mo. ed. (1752-1805), v. 78-88; La-
cepede's 1st ed. (1799-1802), 14 v. ; Lacepede's 2d ed. (1817-19), v. 13-17 ; Lamou-
roux and Desmarest's ed. (1824-32), suite — i. e., CEuvres du Comte de Lacepede — v
5-11; Lecointe's ed. (1829-34), about 25 v. ; also, republished in "Histoire Natu
relle" (Furve et cie), in 1855 : the compilation ascribed to SONNINI DE MANONCOUS

39

(Charles Nicolas Sigisbert) is also merely a slightly modified reprint of the same
work. The last is entitled : Histoire Naturelle generale et particuliere des Poissoiis ;
ouvrage faisant Suite a 1'Histoire Naturelle, generale et particuliere; composee par
Leclerc de Buffon, et mise dans un iiouvel ordre [v. 9, 10, 1J, "Redige"] par C. S.
Sonnini, avec des notes et additions. Par C. S. Sonnini, . . • . — Paris, de 1'impri-
merie de F. Dufart, an XI [— ] XII [1803-1805— 8 vo., 13 vols.]

A work by an able man and eloquent writer (even prone to aid rhetoric by the
aid of the imagination, in absence of desirable facts), but which, on account of undue
confidence in others, default of comparison of materials from want thereof and other
wise, and carelessness generally, is entirely unreliable. Many species appear under
several different names, and in genera widely separated. The classification adopted
is a procrustean system of (1) subclasses, (2) divisions, and (3) orders.

First, Subclasses, based on the supposed consistence of the skeleton (Sousclasses
(1) Poissons cartilagineux ; (2) Poissons osseux).

Second, Divisions, under each subclass, established on the supposed presence or
absence and various combinations (4) of the opercula and brauchiostegal membrane,
that is, the presence of both ; of one ; or, the other ; or, none.

Third, Orders, distinguished by the absence of ventrals (Apodes), or their presence
at different regions (Jugulaires, Thoracins, Abdominaux).

Several of these categories are non-existent in nature, and the reference of species
to them is due to erroneous observation or supposition.

Fourteen hundred and sixty-three (1463) nominal species were described.

1801.

BLOCK (Marc Elieser), and Johann Gottlob SCHNEIDER. M. E. Blochii,
Doctoris Medicinae Berolinensis, et societatibus literariis multis adscripti,
Systema Ichthyologiae iconibus ex illustratum. Post4obitum anctoris opus
inchoatum absolvit, correxit, interpolavit Jo. Gottlob Schneider, Saxo. — Berolini,
sumtibus auctoris impressum et bibliopolio Sanderiauo commissum. 1801.
[Svo., Ix, 584 pp., 110 col. pi.]

A compilation in which the various species described by authors are collected
together, and referred with very little judgment to the genera admitted. The class
is arranged in a new manner, avowedly according to the number of the fins, but very
frequently in defiance of their true number and morphology, as notably in the genera
1, 2, 4, 7, 21, 37, 38, but, also, in very many others. The system is as follows, the
genera described as new (in Bloch's previous works as well as the present) being
indicated by italics :—

Classis I. Hendecapterygii. (11 fins.) — 1. Lepadogaster.
Classis II. Decapterygii. (10 fins.)
Ordo i. Jugulares. — 2. Gadus.
Ordo ii. Thoracici.— 3. Trigla.
Ordo iii. Abdomiuales. — 4. Polynenms.
Classis III. Enneapterygii. (9 fins.) — 5. Scomber.
Classis IV. OctopterygU. (8 fins.)

Ordo i. Jugulares. — 6. ^allionymus ; 7. Batrachus ; 8. Uranogcopus ; 9.

Enchelyopus ; 10. Trachinus ; 11. Phycis.

Ordo ii. Thoracici. — 12. Platycephalus ; 13. Cottus ; 14. Periophthalmus ;
15. Eleotris ; 16. Gobius ; 17. Johnius ; 18. Mullu^ ; 19. Scisena ; 20.
Perca; 21. Xiphias ; 22. Zeus; 23. Brama: 24. Monocentris ; 25.
Lonchurus ; 26. Macrurus ; 27. Agonus ; 28. Eques.

40

Ordo iii. Abdominales. — 29. Cataphr ictus (=Callichthys) ; 30. Sphyraena;
31. Atherina; 32. Ceutriscus ; 33. Fistularia ; 34. Mugil; 35. (iasteros-
teus; 36. Loricaria; 37. Squalus.
Classis V. Heptapterygii. (7 fins.)

Ordo i. Jugulares. — 38. Lopliius ; 39. Pteraclis ; 40. Pleuroneetes ; 41.
Kyrtus; 42. Trichoga&t er ; 43. Centronotus (=Murrenoides) ; 44. Blen-
nius ; 45. Percis ; 46. Trichonotus.

Ordo ii. Thoracic!. — 47. Monoceros; 48. Grammistcs • 49. Scorpaeua; £0.
Synanceia; 51. Cyclopterus ; 52. Amphiprion; 53. Amphacanthus (=Teuthis,
L.) ; 54. Acanthurus ; 55. Chaetodon ; 56. Alphestes; 57. Ophiocephalu*
(Bl. Ausl. Fische, viii) ; 58. Lt'pidopus ; 59. Echeneis ; 60. Cepola ; 61.
Labrus ; 62. Sparus ; 63. Scarus ; 64. Coryphaena; 65. Epinephelus ;
66. Antlrias; 67. Cephalopholis ; 68. Calliodon-; 69. Holocentrus ; 70.
Lutianus; 71. Bodianus; 72. Cichla ; 73. Gymnocephalus.
Ordo iii. Abdominales. — 74. Acipenser ; 75. Chhnaera; 76. Pristis ; 77.
Rhina; 78. Rhinobatus ; 79. Raja; 80. Platystacus ; 81. Silurus ; 82.
Anableps ; 83. Acanthonotus (=Notacanthus) ; 84. Esox ; 85. Synodus ;
86. Salmo; 87. Clupea; 88. Exocoetus ; 89. Chauliodus ; 90. Elops ;
91. Albula; 92. Cobitis ; 93. Cyprinus ; 94. Amia ; 95. Poecilia ; 96.
Pegasus; 97. Mormyrus; 98. Polyodon ; genus dubiuin 99. Argentina.
Classis VI. Hexapterygii. (6 fins.)

[Ordo i.J Apodes.— 100. Balistes ; 101. Rynchobdella.

Ordo ii. Pinna anali carentes. — 102. Trachypterus ; 103. Gymnetrus (=Re-

galecus Brunn).
Classis VII. Pentapterygii. (Fins 5.)

Ordo i. Apodes. — 104. Ophidium ; 104a. Pomatias ; 1046. Gnatkobolus ( =
pdontoguathus Lac.); 105. Muraeua ; 106. Stromateus ; 107. Atnmody-
tes; 108. Stemoptyx; 109. Anarrhicas ; 110. Channa; 111. Sternar-
chus ; 112. Ostracion; 113. Tetrodon ; 114. Orthragoriscus ; 115. Diodon;
116. Syngnatlms.
Classis VIII. Tetrapterygii, Apodes. — 117. Trichiurus ; 118. Bogmarus (=Tra-

chypterus Gouan) ; USa. Teenoides ; 119. Stylephorus.
Classis IX. Tripterygii.

Ordo i. Apodes. — 120. Gymnonotus.

Ordo ii. Achiri et Apodes. — 121. Synbranchus; 122. Gymnothorax (=Mur-

sena L.).
Classis X. Dipterygii.

Ordo i. Apodes. — 123. Ovum.

Ordo ii. Apodes et Achiri. — 124. Petromyzon ; 125. Leptoceplialus.
Classis XI. Monopterygii. Apodes et Achiri. — .126. Gastrobranchus (=Myxine
Linn.); 127. Sphagebranchus (=0phichthys Ahl.) ; 127a. Fluta (=
Mouopterus Lac.) ; 128. Typhlobranchus.

1803-1804.

SHAW (George). General Zoology or Systematic Natural History. By George
Shaw, M.D., F.R.S., &c., with plates from the first authorities and most select
specimens, engraved principally by Mr. Heath. — [Specifications.] — London:
[v. 1-7,] Printed for G. Kearsley, Fleet Street, [v. 8-14, by others]. 1800
[— ] 1826. [Svo., 14 v.]

41

Besides the engraved title, copied above, there is, on the following leaf, a short
printed one, viz: — General Zoology. — [Specifications.] — London: [Publishers].
— 1800 [ — ] 1826. The later volumes were by James Francis Stephenson.

The Ichthyological portion is contained iu the fourth and fifth volumes, viz: —

Vol. IV. Tart I. Pisces.— .... 1S03. [1 eng. title, 1 plain title, pp.

v, [1,] 1-186, pi. l-25.—Apodes 53 sp. ; Jugu-
lares, 53 sp.=106 pp.]

Vol. IV. Part II. Pisces.— .... 1803. [1 eng. title, pp. xi, [-|-ii], incl.

pi. title, 187-632, pi. 26-92+43, 65, 69, 74.—
Thoracici, 672 sp.]

Vol. V. Part I. Pisces.— .... 1804. [1 eng. title, 1 pi. title, pp.

v, [-fiii,] 1-230, pi. 93-132. —A bdominales,
261 sp.]

Vol. V. Part II. Pisces.— .... 1804. [1 eng. title, pp. vi, [+ii,] incl.

pi. title, 251-463, pi. 133-182+158.— Cartilay-
inei, 191 sp.]

This part is a compilation, based on the system of Linn6 as modified by Gmelin in
the restoration of the Amphibia nantes to the Fishes. It is even worse than its pre
decessors in the incorporation of species unknown to Linnj in the genera. The
illustrations are almost entirely copied from the works of Bloch and Lacepede, only
five or six (according to Cuvier), representing species in the British Museum, being
original. Two new generic types (Trachichthys ani Stylephorus) are added, one of
which, however (Trachichthys'), had been previously described in the Naturalists'
Miscellany (v. X).

Twelve hundred and thirty (1230) nominal species were described.
The generic diagnoses, it may be added, were copied (sometimes with very slight
modifications) by Dr. S. L. Mitchill in his memoir ("The Fishes of New York,
described and arranged") in the "Transactions of the Literary and Philosophical
Society of New York."

1828-1849.

CUVIER (Georges Chretien Leopold Dagobert, baron) and Achille VA
LENCIENNES. Histoire naturelle des poissons, par M. le B™ Cuvier, • • • ;

et par M. Valenciennes, .... Tome premier [ — Tome vingt-deuxieme.]

A Paris, [v. 1-12] chez F. G. Levrault, .... 1828 [-37] ; [v. 13-14], chez
Pitois-Levrault et O, • . . . 1839 ; [v. 15] ; chez Ch. Pitois, editeur, ....
1840; [v. 16-22] chez P. Bertrand, [etc.]. 1842-1849.
As indicated on the reverse of the bastard title, all the volumes were printed at

Strasbourg, v. 1 to 13 having been printed by F. G. Levrault (Imprimerie de F. G.

Levrault), and v. 14 to 22 by the widow Levrault. (Imprimerie da Ve Berger.

Levrault.)

CONTEXTS.

.

v. 1. Livre premier.— Tableau historique des progres de 1'ichtyologie. depuis

sou origine jusqu'a nos jours.

Livre deuxieme. — Ide"e generale de la nature et de 1'organisation des poissons.

1828.
v. 2-3. Livre troisikrne. — Des poissons de la famille des Perches, on des Per- .

coides. [Par Cuvier.] 1828-29.

42

v. 4. Livre quatrierne. — Des acanthopterygiens a joue cuirassee. [Par Cuvier.]

1829.

v. 5. Livre cinquieme. — Des Scieno'ides. [Par Cuvier.] 1830.
v. 6. Livre sixieine. — (Partie I. Des Sparo'ides ; Partie II. Des Menidea.) 1830.

[Par Cuvier et Valenciennes.]
v. 7. Livre septieme. — Des Squamipennes. [Par Cuvier?]

Livre huitieme. — Des poissous a pharyngiens labyrinthiformes. 1831. [Par
Cuvier?]

v. 8-9. Livre neuvieme. Des Scombero'ides. 1831-33. [Par Cuvier et Valen
ciennes.]

v. 10. Suite du 1. 9. — Des Scombero'ides. [Par Cuvier et Valenciennes?]
Livre dixieme. — De la famille des Teuthies. [Par Cuvier et Valenciennes?]
" onzieme. — De la famille des Taenio'ides. [Par Cuvier et Valenciennes?]
" douzieme. — Des Atherines. 1835. [Par Cuvier et Valenciennes ?]
T. 11. Livre troizieme. — Des Mugiloi'des.

Livre quatorzieme. — De la faraille des Gobio'ides. 1836.
v. 12. Suite du livre quatorzieme. — Gobio'ides.

Livre quinzieme. — Des acanthopterygiens a pectorales pediculees. 1837.
v. 13. Livre seizieme. — Labroides. 1839.
v. 14. Suite du livre seizieme. — Labroides.

Livre dix-septieme. — Des Malacopterygiens. Des Siluro'ides. 1839.
v. 15. Suite du livre dix-septieme. — Siluro'ides. 1840.
v. 16-17. Livre dix-huitieme.— Cyprino'ides. 1842.
v. 18. Suite du livre dix-huitieme. — Cyprino'ides.

Livre dix-neuvieme. — Des Esoces ou Lucioides. 1846.
v. 19. Suite du livre dix-neuvieme. — Brochets ou Lucio'ides.

Livre vingtietne. — De quelques families* de Malacopterygiens, intermediaires

entre les Brochets et les Clupes. 1846.

v. 20. Livre vingt et unieme. — De la famille des Clupeo'ides. 1847.
v. 21. Suite du livre viugt et unieme et des Clupeo'ides. f 1848.

Livre vingt-deuxieme. — De la famille des Salmonoi'des.

v. 22. Suite du livre vingt-deuxieme.— Suite de la famille des Salmonoides. 1849.
Two editions were published, one in octavo and the other in quarto, but from the
same types, adjusted only for difference of form. Of each edition, copies with colored
and uncolored plates were published ; the price of the octavo edition with plain plate*
was, for the first twelve volumes, 13 francs 50 centimes per volume, afterwards (v.
13-22), 19 francs 50 centimes; with colored plates, 23 francs 50 centimes, afterwards
raised to 39 francs 50 centimes; of the quarto edition with plain plates, at first 18
francs, and afterwards (v. 13-22), 28 francs; with colored plates, 18 francs, after
wards 48 francs per volume. For sets in octavo with plain plates, 300 (Grasse) or
429 (Lorenz) francs, and with colored plates, 600 (Grasse) or 869 (Lorenz) francs ;
in quarto with plain plates, 480 (Grasse) or 616 (Loreuz) francs, and with colored
plates, 800 (Grasse) or 1056 (Lorenz) francs.

* The families referred to are: Chirocentres (with the genus Chirocentrug), Alepoclphales (with
Altpryctphfilut), Lutodeires (with Chanos and Gonorhynchus), Mormjres (with Mormyrus), Hjodontes
(with Oateoylossum, Itchnoyoma, and Hyodon), Butirins (with Albula=Butirinu») £lopiens (with Elopt
and Jfeyilopv), Amies (with Amin], Vastres ou Amies? (Vattret), famille particuliire, ou Amios?
(ffiterotis), Erythroidos (with Erythrinus, Mierodon, Lebiatina, and Pyrrhulina), and Ombres (with
Umbra)

f The Notoptlres are differentiated from the Ciupeoides as a very distinct family (une famille tr6s
dijincteKa

v. 1. xvi, 574 pp. 1 1.

xiv, 422 pp. 1 1.

pi. 1-8 [double]. 1828.*

2. xxi, [1 1.] 490 pp.

xvii, [1 1.] 371 pp.

pi. 9-40. 1828.

3. xxviii, 500 pp. 1 1.

xxii, [1 L] 368 pp.

pi. 41-71. 1829.

4. xxvi, [1 1.] 518 pp.

xx, [1 L] 379 pp.

pi. 72-99, 97 bis. 1829.

5. xxviii, 499 pp. 2 1.

xx, 374 pp. 2 1.

pi. 100-140. 1830.

6. xxiv, 559 pp. 3 1.

xviii, [3 1.1 470pp.

pi. 141-169, 162 bis, 162 ter,

162 quater, 167 bis, 168 bis.

7. xxix, 531 pp. 3 1.

xxii, [3 L] 399 pp.

pi. 170-208. 1831.

8. xix, [2 L] 509 pp.

xv, [2 1.] 375 pp.

pi. 209-245. 1831.

9. xxix, 512 pp. 1 1.

xxiv, [1 L] 379 pp.

pi. 246-279. 1833.

10. xxiv, 482 pp. 1 1.

xix, [1 1.] 358pp.

pi. 280-306. 1835.

11. xx, 506 pp. 1 1.

xv, [1 1.] 373pp.

pi. 307-343. 1836.

12. xxiv, 507 4- 1 pp.

xx, 377 pp. 1 1.

pi. 344-368. 1837.

13. xix, 505 pp. 1 1.

xvii, 370 pp.

pi. 369-388. 1839.

14. xxii, 464 pp. 3 1.

xx, 344 pp. 3 1.

pi. 389^120. 1839.

15. xxxi, 540 pp. 1 1.

xxiv, 397 pp.

pi. 421-455. 1840.

16. xx, 472 pp. 1 1.

xviii, 363 pp. 1 1.

pi. 456-487. 1842.

17. xxiii, 497 pp. 1 1.

xx, 370 pp. 1 1.

pi. 487 [bis]-519. 1844.

18. xix, 505 pp. 2 1.

xviii, 375 pp. 2 1.

pi. 520-553. 1846.

19. xix, 544 pp. 3 1.

xv, 391 pp. 2 1.

pi. 554-590. 1846.

20. xviii, 472 pp. 1 1.

xiv, 346 pp. 1 1.

pi. 591-606. 1847.

21. xiv, 536 pp.

xiii [4- iii], 391 pp.

pi. 607-633. 1848.

22. xx, 532, 91(4-1) pp.

xvi, 395, [Index] 814-1

pp. pi. 634-650. 1849.

4514f nominal species were described in the 22 volumes : all belonging to the order
Teleocephali, except the Gasterosteidae (17 sp.), Opisthomi ( sp.), Nematognathi
(298 sp.), Seyphophori (12 sp.), and Amiidae (10 sp.), to balance which the Cich-
lidae (or Chromididae), Anacanthini and Gymnarchidae almost alone remained to be
described.

COMPLEMENTARY. 1865-1870.
/
DUMERIL (August). Histoire naturelle des Poissons ou Ichthyologie general e

par Aug. Dumeril [,] professeur-admiuistrateur au Museum d'Histoire naturelle
de Paris. — Ouvrage accompagne de planches. — [See "contents."] — Paris [,]
Librairie encyclopedique de Roret, .... 1865. [-]1870. [Text 8vo. Atlas,
larger Svo.]

CONTENTS.

Tome premier [.] fsiasmobranches [i. e.] Plagiostomes et Holocephales ou Chi-
meres. — Premiere partie. • • • 1835. [2 p. 1. pp. 1-352] ; Seconde partie.
. • . 1865. [2 p. 1. pp. 353-720.— With atlas, 16 fr.; col., 19 fr.]

Tome second [.] Ganoides, Dipnes, Lophobranches. • • • 1870. [2 p. 1. 624
PP-]

* The plates illustrating the first volume, and representing the anatomy of fishes, were in one edition,
issued in a folio fasciculus.

| In this enumeration, I hare adopted without verification the statements by Dr. Giinther, published
in the several volumes (I, II, III, V, VI) of his Catalogue of Fishes, and added Pterophyllum (1 sp.),
Pomacentridae (74 sp.), Labridae (3.31 sp.), Cyprinidae and Cyprinodontidae (438+54=492 t<p.), Esocida*
(10 sp.), Galaxiidae (7 sp.), Scomberesocidae (90 sp.), Mormyridae (20 sp.), Amiidae (10 sp.), Umbridae
(1 sp.) and Salmonidae (105 sp.)

44

Atlas. [PI. 1-14 to v. 1, with 8 pp. (1-8) explanatory, including title ; PI. 15-
26 to v. 2, with separate title-page and pp. 9-12 explanatory.]

The plan of this work was quite elaborate, and systematic summaries of the an
atomical characteristics of the various major groups have been given in the volume
published, in addition to an extended introduction on Ichthyology. 618 nominal
species are described or indicated, including those which the author did not especially
call doubtful, but which, from want of sufficient precision and details in the descrip
tions or other cause, he could not contrast in his synoptical tables : these 616 species
were arranged under 101 genera, 35 families, and 7 orders, and represented 4 subclasses.

In order to exhibit the contrast in the mode of treatment of the groups in question
by two contemporaneous ichthyologists, the following details respecting the numbers
of species are given without other comment than that the sequence and details of
classification in Giinther's work are also different.

DtJMERIL, 1S65-70. G'CNTHER, 1870.

Ie. Sous-classe, Elasmobranch.es
Plagiostomes
Squales
Raies

Holocephales
IIe. Sous-classe, Ganoides.

Chondrostes
Holostes

Lepidosteides

Polypterides

Amiades

129 (+10 d)
177 (+ 6 d)

8

85

8
30

6
12

IIP. Sous-classe, Dipnes 2
IVe. Sous-classe, Lophobranches

Hypostomides 4

Prostomides 165

1859-1870.

1284-18 d.
130+37 d.
4

22+10 d.

3+ Id.

2

1

3

4

116+25 d.

GUNTHER (Albert C. L. G.)- Catalogue of the fishes in the British museum.

By Albert Giinther, .... Volume first [to volume eight]. — London : printed

by order of the trustees. 1859-1870. [8vo., 8 v.]

This important work was commenced with a more restricted design and title, the
first three volumes being designated as indicated below, and the general title was
only assumed with the fourth volume : at the end of that volume, general titles for
the preceding ones were supplied, and that and all subsequent ones had double titles,
— the general and the special here reproduced, viz : —

v. 1-3. — Catalogue of the Acanthopterygian fishes in the collection of the British
museum. By Dr. Albert Giinther.
Volume first. Gasterosteidae, Berycidse, Percidae, Aphredoderidae, Pristipoma-

tidae, Mullidae, Sparidae. .... 1859. [Genera title + xxxix, 524

pp.— 10s.]
Volume second. Squamipinnes, Cirrhitidae, Triglidae, Trachinidae, Sciaenidae,

Polynemidse, Sphyraenidae, Trichiuridae, Scombridae, Carangidse, Xiphiidae.

.... 1860. [General title + xxi, 548 pp.— 8s. 6d]

45

Volume tliird. Gobiidae, Discoboli, Oxudercidae, Batrachidae. Pediculati, Blen-
niidae, Acanthoclinidae, Comephoridae, Trachypteridae, Lophotidae, Teutlii-
didae, Acronuridae, Hoplognathidae, Malaoanthidae, Nandidse, Polycentridae,
Labyrinthici, Lucioceplialidae, Atherinidse, Mugilidae, Ophiocephalidae, Tri-
chonotidae, Cepolidae, Gobiesocidae, Psychrolutidae, Centriscidse, Fistulariidae,

Mastacembelidae, Notacanthi 1861. [General title -f xxv, 586 -f

x pp.*_10s. 6J.]
v. 4. — Catalogue of the Acanthopterygii pharyngognathi and Anacanthini in the

collection of the British museum, .... 1862. [General title -f xxi, 534

pp. — Ss. 6c?.]
v. 5. — Catalogue of the Physostomi, containing the families Siluridae, Characi-

nidae, Haplochitonidae, Sternoptychidse, Scopelidns, Stomiatidae in the collection

of the British museum, .... 1864. [ (including general title) xxii, 455

PP-—]

T. 6. — Catalogue of the Physostomi, containing the families Salmonidae, Percop-
sidae, Galaxidae, Mormyridae, Gymnarchidae, Esocidae, Umbridae, Scombresocidae,
Cyprinodontidae in the collection of the British museum, .... 1866. [xv,
368 pp.]

T. 7. — Catalogue of the Physostomi, containing the families Heteropygii, Cypri-
nidae, Gonorhynchidae, Hyodontidse, Osteoglossidas, Clupeidae, Chirocentridae,
Alepocephalidae, Notopteridae, Halosauridae in the collection of the British mu
seum, .... 1868. [xx, 512 pp.]

T. 8. — Catalogue of the Physostomi, containing the families Gymnotidae, Sym-

branchidae, Muraenidse, Pegasidae, and of the [orders] Lophobranchii, Plec-

tognathi, [and sub-classes] Dipnoi, Gauoidei, Chondropterygii, Cyclostomata,

Leptocardii, in the British museum, .... 1870. [xxv, 549 pp.]

"In the present work, 6843 species *re regarded as well established and described;

whilst 1682 others are doubtful and referred to by name only. Assuming, then, that

about one-half of the latter will be ultimately admitted into the system, and that,

since the publication of the volume of this work, about 1000 species have been

described elsewhere, we may put the total number of fishes known at present as about

9000." Gthr. v. 8, p. vi.

* A "Systematic synopsis of the families of the Acanthopterygian fishes" (x pp.) ia given as an ap
pendix to the third volume.

INDEX.

Acanthoclinidae, 34.
Acanthopteri, p. 4.
Acanthopterygii, p. 4.
Acanthopterygii blenni-

formes, p. 3.
Acanthopterygii channi-

formes, p. 13.
Acanthopterygii gobi-

esociformes, p. 13.
Acanthuridae, 71.
Acipenseridae, 214.
Acronuridae, p. 7.
Agonidae, 54.
Albulidae, 166.
Alepidosauridae, 161*
Alepocephalidae, 163.
Alopeciidae, 231.
Amblyopidae, 141.
Amblyopoidea, p. 14.
Amiidae, 208.
Aramodytidae, 29.
Amphacanthidae, 72.
Amphipnoidae, 196.
Araphisilidae, 138.
Anabantidae, 68.
Anacanthini, p. 3.
Anarrhicadidae, 37.
Anguillidae, 199.
Antennariidae, 12.
Apliredoderidae, 118.
Apodes, p. 18.
Argiidae, 190.
Aspredinidae, 193.
Ateleopodidae, 27.
Atherinidae, 130.
Aulopidae, 156.
Aulorhynchidae, 134.
Aulostomidae, 135.
Aulostomoidea, p. 14.

Balistidae, 5.
Batrachidae, 41.
Batrachoidea, p. 5.

Bdellostomidae, 243.
Belonidae, 139.
Berycidae, 101.
Berycoidea, p. 10.
Blenniidae, 39.
Blennoidea, p. 4.
Bovichthyidae, 96.
Bramidae, 56.
Brachioganoidei, p. 21.
Branchiostomidae, 244.
Bregraacerotidae, 22.
Brotulidae, 20.
Brotulophididae, 21.

Callichthyidae, 189.
Callionymidae, 51.
Cantharina, p. 10.
Capridae, 90.
Carangidae, 79.
Carchariidae, p. 24.
Cataphracti, p. 6.
Catastomidae, 174.
Cebedichthyidae, 38.
Centrarchidae, 107.
Centriscidae, 137.
Centrisciformes, p. 14.
Centropomidae, 110.
Cephalopteridae, 217.
Cepolidae, 128.
Ceratiidae, 12.
Ceratodontidae, 212.
Ceratopterina, p. 22.
Cestraciontidae, p. 23.
Cetorhinidae, 228.
Chacidae, 186.
Chaenichthyidae, 93.
Chaenopsidae, 35.
Chaetodontidae, 74.
Chaetodontoidea, p. 8.
Chanoidae, 168.
Characinidae, 145.
Chatoessina, p. 17.
Chauliodontidae, 152.

Chilobranchidae, 202.
Chimaerae, p. 22.
Chimaeridae, 215.
Chiridae, 59.
Chirocentridae, 173.
Chondroganoidea, p. 22.
Chondrostei, p. 22.
Cichlidae, 64.
Cirrhitidae, 117.
Cirrostomi, p. 25.
Clariidae, 188.
Clupeidae, 170.
Cobitidae, 176.
Colocephali, p. 18.
Comephoridae, 122.
Congridae, 198.
Congrogadidae, 17.
Coregonidae, 158.
Coryphaenidae, 81.
Cottidae, 55.
Cottoidea, p. 6.
Crossopterygia, p. 21.
Crossorhinidae, 236.
Cryptacanthidae, 31.
Cycloganoidei, p. 21.
Cyclopteridae, 49.
Cyprinidae, 175.
Cyprinodontidae, 144.
Cyprinodontoidea, p. 15.

Dactyloscopidae, 43.
Dianidae, 88.
Dipnoi, p. 22.
Dorosomidae, 171.
Drepanidae, 80.
Dussumieridae, 169.

Echeneididae, 120.
Echeneidoidea, p. 12.
Elasmobranchii, p. 22.
Electrophoridae, 180.
Elopidae, 167.
Embioticidae, 65.
(47)

Enchelycephali, p. 18.

Engraulididae, 172.
Ephippiidae, 15.
Esocidae, 142.
Eveutoguathi, p. 17.

Fierasferidae, 18.
Fistulariidae, 136.

Gadidae, 24.
Gadopsidae, 30.
Galaxiidae, 148.
Galei, p. 23.
Galeorhinidae, 233.
Ganoidei, p. 21.
Gasterosteidae, 133.
Gasterosteoidea, p. 13.
Gerridae, G6.
Ginglymostomatidae,

235.

Glanencheli, p. 19.
Glaniostomi, p. 21.
Gobiesocidae, 47.
Gobiesocoidea, p. 5.
Gobiidae, 52.
Gobioidea, p. 6.
Gonprhynchidae, 164.
Gymnarchidae, 182.
Gymuodontes, p. 1.
Gymuonoti, p. 19.
Gymiiotidae, 180.

Halosauridae, 151.
Haplochitonidae, 147.
Haplomi, p. 14.
Harpagiferidae, 94.
Helostoraidae, 67.
Hemibranchi, p. 13.
Hemitripteridae, 57.
lieterodontidae, 225.
Heteropygii, p. 14.
Heterosomata, p. 2.
Hippocampidae, 7.
Holocephali, p. 22.
Holostomi, p. 19.
Homalopteridae, 177.
Hoplegnathidae, 113.
Hoplegnathoidea, p. 11,
Hyodontidae, 165.
Hyoganoidea, p. 21.
Hypcroartia, p. 24.
Hyperotreta, p. 25.

Hypophtlialmidae, 183,
Hypostomatina, p. 20.

Ichthyocephali, p. 19.
Isospondyli, p. 15.

Kneriidae, 178.
Kurtidae, 89.

Labridae, 62.
Labyrinthici, p. 7.
Lamnidae, 229.
Lamprididae, 87.
Latilidae, 97.
Lepidosirenidae, 211.
Lepidosteidae, 209.
Leptocardii, p. 25.
Leptoscopidae, 42.
Lepturoidae, p. 8.
Liparididae, 48.
Lophiidae, 11.
Lophobranchii, ]). 2.
Lophotidae, 124.
Loricariidae, 191.
Luciocephalidae, 125.
Lycodidae, 26.

Macrnridae, 16.
Maenididae, 105.
Maltheidae, 10.
Marsipobranchii, p. 24.
Mastacembelidae, 206.
Masticura, p. 22.
Merluciidae, 25.
Monocentridap, 100.
Monopteridae, 194.
Mormyridae, 181.
Mugilidae, 132.
Mullidae, 98.
Mulloidea, p. 10.
Muraenidae, 201.
Muraenesocidae, 197.
Mustelina, p. 24.
Myelozoa, p. 25.
Myliobatidae, 216.
Myxinidae, 242.

Nandidae, 114.
Nematistiidae, 82.
Nematognathi, p. 20.
Nemichthyidae, 203.
Nemophididae, 36.

Xomeidae, 91.
Notacanthi, p. 18.
Notacanthidae, 207.
Notidanidae, 226.
Notopteridae, 150.
Nototheniidae, 95.

Odontaspididae, 230.
Ophidiidae, 19.
Ophiocephalidae, 126.
Opisthopterae, p. 21.
Orthagoriscidae, 1.
Osphromenidae, 69.
Osteoglossidae, 149.
Ostraciontidae, 4.
Ostracodermi, p. 1.
Oxudercidae, 121.
Oxynotidae, 239.

Pachyura, p. 23.
Pagrina, p. 10.
Paralepididae, 162.
Paralepidoidea, p. 16
Pataecidae, 40.
Pediculati, p. 2.
Pegasidae, 111.
Percesoces, p. 13.
Percidae, 109.
Percoidea, p. 10.
Percopsidae, 146.
Petromyzontidae, 241.
Pharyn^obranchii, 25.
Pharyngognathi, p. 6.
Physocly sti iucertae sedis,

P. 11.

Pimelepteridae, 104.
Plagiostonii, p. 22.
PJatycephalidae, 56.
Platypteridac, 50.
Plectognathi, p. 1.
Plesiopidae, 115.
Pleuronectidae, 15.
Plotosidae, 187.
Polycentridae, 116.
Polymixidae, 99.
Polyrnixoidea, p. 10.
Polynemidae, 70.
Polynematoidea, p. 7.
Polyodontidae, 213.
Polypteridae, 210.
Pomacentridae, 63.
Priacanthidae, 112.

Priacanthoidea, p. 11.
Pristidae, 223.
Pristiophoridae, 240.
Pristipomatidae, 106.
Psycbrolutidae, 129.
Pteraclididae, 85.
Ptyobranchinae, 200.

Raiae, p. 22.
Raiidae, 220.
Ranicepitidae, 23.
Rataburidae, 200.
Rhamphobatidae, 222.
Rhinae, p. 23.
Rhinobatidae, 221.
Rhinodontidae, 227.
Rhomboganoidei, p. 21.

Saccopharyngidae, 205.
Salangidae, 160.
Salmonidae, 159.
Sargina, p. 10.
Scaridae, 60.
Sciaenidae, 102.
Sciaenoidea, p. 10.
Sclerodermi, p. 1.
Scomberesocidae, 140.
Scombridae, 18.
Scombroidea, p. 8.
Scopelidae, 155.
Scorpaenidae, 58.
Scylliidae, 234.

Scymnidae, 238.
Scyphophori, p. 20.
Selachostorai, p. 22.
Serranidae, 108.
Sillaginidae, 92.
Sillaginoidea, p. 9.
Siluridae, 185.
Siphonognathidae, 61.
Sirenoidei, p. 22.
Sisoridae, 192.
Soleidae, 14.
Solenostomi, p. 2.
Solenostomidae, 9.
Sparidae, 103.
Sphyraenidae, 119.
Sphyraenoidea, p. 12.
Sphyrnidae, 232.
Spinacidae, 237.
Squali, p. 23.
Squamipennes, p. 8.
Squatinidae, 224.
Sternoptychidae, 153.
Sternopygidae, 179.
Stichaeidae, 32.
Stomiatidae, 154.
Stromateidae, 83.
Symbrachidae, 195.
Synaphobrancbidae, 204.
Synentognathi, p. 14.
Syngnathi, p. 2.
Syngnathidae, 8.
Synodontidae, 157.

Teleocephali, p. 2.
Teleostei, p. 1.
Tcleostomi, p. 1.
Tetragon uridae, 131.
Tetrodontidae, 2.
Teuthididae, p. 7.
Torpedinidae, 219.
Toxoticlae, 73.
Trachiiiidae, 45.
Trachinoidea, p. 5.
Trachypteridae, 123.
Triacanthidae, 6.
Trichiuridae, 77.
Trichodontidae, 46.
Trichodontoidea, p. 5.
Trichomycteridae, 184.
Tricbonotidae, 127.
Triglidae, 53.
Triodontidae, 3.
Trygonidae, 218.

Urabridae, 143.
Urauoscopidae, 44.

Xenocephalidae, 28.
Xipbidiontidae, 33.
Xipbiidae, 76.

Zenidae, 84.
Zygaenina, p. 24.

S!JURN CIRCULATION DEPARTMENT

202 Main Librar

LOAN PERIOD 1
HOME USE

1 ~" /

2

3

4

5

6

Renewals and Recharges may be made 4 days prior to the due date.
Books may be Renewed by calling 642-3405.

DUE AS STAMPED BELOW

AUTODISCCiRC F

• •

FORM NO. DD6,

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY
BERKELEY, CA 94720

®$

GENERAL LIBRARY - U.C. BERKELEY

c-

. ; -

-•, -.

m

BH^HB

• • •/ ; t' *•••