THE SKULLS OF FTSI1ES. 201 



sion. A comparison of the skull of the monk fish with that of the 

 embryonic osseous fish (Fig. 72, C) seems to me to demonstrate 

 beyond question, that the upper dentigerous arch (h) corre- 

 sponds with the palato-quadrate cartilage of the embryo,* and 

 that the suspensorium {g) equally corresponds with the hyoman- 

 dibular and symplectic cartilage. But in this case Cuvier's view 

 of the upper dentigerous arch must be regarded as a singularly 

 near approximation to the truth, for it certainly answers to the 

 palatine and pterygoid ; though, in addition, it contains the 

 representatives of the quadrate and metapterygoid bones of the 

 osseous fish. And his opinion regarding the nature of the sus- 

 pensorium was still nearer to what I believe to be right. On the 

 other hand, I think it very probable, though not certain, that, 

 as Miiller supposed, the cartilages (i, h, I) are merely labial, and 

 that these fishes have no representatives of the premaxilla and 

 maxilla. But the so-called palatine and pterygoid cartilages of 

 Miiller, if the view I take is correct, are as much accessory parts 

 as the spiracular cartilages, and, like them, have no representa- 

 tives in osseous fishes. 



* Eatlike arrived at tills conclusion also, on developmental grounds, in 1839. See 

 his " Vierter Bericht," quoted in the last Lecture of this work. 



