208 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF 



finger, are found among the rocks, close to land, during the summer." But 

 he immediately afterwards adds that, " the small eels which ascend the 

 Severn in such numbers in the spring, and were considered by Willoughby 

 and Pennant as the young of the Conger, are in reality the young of fresh- 

 water eels." May we not go a step farther and ask that it may be demonstrated 

 that those "found among rocks, close to land," are Congers, and not eels, 

 which have not yet commenced to ascend the rivers ? 



The Hyoproprus Messinensis* appears, likewise, to be merely the larval form 

 of the Congroid Nettastoma melanura.f The resemblance between those two 

 forms will be readily appreciated, by reference to Dr. Kaup's figures of the two. 

 Perhaps the affinities of those Leptocephali with an expanded caudal, are to 

 be sought for elsewhere. As to Esunculus coslai, it resembles the young of a 

 Clupeoid, but the high insertion of the pectoral fins, if existent in nature, forbids 

 for the present its positive identification with such. Stomiasuneulus resembles, 

 in general features, a less advanced larval Clupeoid, about three days old. J in 

 which the ventral fins have not yet appeared. Suspicion, however, may be en- 

 tertained that it may, perhaps, be the young of some other type, (possibly 

 Stomiadoids) on account of the backward position of tbe dorsal fin. I have 

 myself, in company with a friend, seen the young of Clupeoids, which would 

 have either been referred to Esunculus, or considered as the type of a closely 

 allied new one, on account of the inferior insertion of the pectoral fins, and so 

 transparent were they, that their eyes alone indicated their position in the 

 water. Although entertaining no doubts concerning the larval nature of Esuncu- 

 lus a?hd Stomiasuneulus, I only venture to suggest the possible relations with 

 much reserve. As to Porobronchus, Kaup.,$ it is, perhaps, related to Fierasfer, 

 but the character of the first elongated dorsal ray requires to be known, before 

 a decision can be arrived at. 



Smithsonian Institution, Wasldngton. 



Note on the family of STICH.EOIDS. 

 BY THEODORE GILL. 



There have been referred to the family of Blennioids a number of more or 

 less elongated fishes, somewhat recalling to mind the Gunnelh, but with the 

 body more tapering backwards and covered with scales ; the head compara- 

 tively elongated and produced towards the snout ; the skull depressed be- 

 hind the eyes; the branchial apertures produced forwards ; the dorsal fin 

 composed of spines ; and the stomach caecal, and also distinguished by the 

 development of caeca around the pylorus. This combination of characters 

 seems to indicate the necessity of the separation of the fishes so distinguished 

 from the family of Blennioids, one of the principal characters assigned to 

 which, by authors of even the most recent date, has been the want of caeca. 

 The named genera known are Leptoblennius Gill, Lumpenus Reinh., Leptoclinus 

 Gill, Stichseus Reinh., and Chirolophis Sw. (Carelophus Kr. = Blenniops Nilss.) 

 For this assemblage the name Stichaeoida? may be appropriated. 



Nearly related to this family is that of Cryptacanthoidae, proposed in the 

 " Catalogue of the Fishes of the Eastern Coast." As there is, however, con- 

 siderable difference in the form and development of the head, and the ven- 

 trals are likewise obsolete, it would scarcely be advisable to combine them 

 and the Stichaeoidaj in one family. There are five pyloric appendages in 

 Cryptacanthodes. The genus has none of the peculiar characters of the 



* Kolliker Verb, d. Phys. Med. Gesellsch in Wurzburg ; iv., p. 101. 

 + Raf. Caratteri, kc, 1810, p. 66, tav. 16, f. 1. 



X See Sundeval "Om Fiskyngels Utveckling" in Kongl. Vet. Akad. Handl. i., 1856, tab. it., 

 fig. 6. 

 i Kaup. An. Mag. N. H. (3) vi., I860, p. 272. 



[Sept. 



