PROCEEDINGS OF UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM. 561 



ou the neurapophyses ; the skull with its froutal portion broad, ex- 

 pauded forward and outward, and entering into the posterior borders 

 of the orbits, which are advanced far forwards ; the post-frontals elong- 

 ated forwards and underlying the frontalsj ethmoid short, decurved and 

 expanded sideways. 



The abbreviated orbital and aute-orbital regions and ensuing modi- 

 fications contrast strongly with the corresponding parts in all the forms 

 with which the genus Lohotes has been associated. With the excep- 

 tions noted, the vertebms are essentially similar to those of the Ser- 

 ranidie. 



Lohotes is the only certainly known member of the family. 



!VOTE OIV THE RELiATIOIVSlIIP<^ OF THE ECHEIVEIDIDS. 

 BY THEODORE OIEJL. 



Among those forms that have been most shifted from place to place 

 in the ichthyological systems is the genus Echeneis of Artedi and Lin- 

 naeus. 



By Artedi (1738) as well as by Linnreus, at first, it was placed in the 

 order Malacopteeygii next to Coryphama, the last a true acanthop- 

 terygian fish. 



By Linnaeus, in the later editions of the Systema ^^aturfe (1758, 176G), 

 it was placed in the order Thoracici, but still kept by the side of 

 Coryphcena. 



By Cuvier (1817) it was referred to the order of ''Malacopterygiens 

 subbrachiens" and the family "Discoboles" after Lepadoyaster and 

 Cyclopterus (E. A., t. 2, p. 227, 1817). 



By Swainson (Xat. Hist, and Class. Fishes, etc., v. 2, 1839) the genus 

 Echeneis was raised to family rank and the family (Echeneidai) referred 

 to the order '^Acauthopteryges" and the tribe "Microleptes," in which 

 it was supposed to constitute an "aberrant family" (p. 30), which "rep- 

 resented" the Acanthopterygian "tribe Blennides" (p. 32) and the 

 "order Apodes" (p. 31). 



It was preceded by the "typical" Tamilies (1) " Scomberidse " and (2) 

 "Zeidaj," and followed by the "aberrant" families (4) "Centriscidge" 

 and (5) "Coryiihajuidaj." 



Subsequently all reference to the family as well to the genus was 

 omitted (apparently through forgetful u ess) by Swainson in the later 

 and synoptical portion of the work. His eccentric classification is only 

 noticed here because a similar or still more extreme view as to the afiin- 

 ity of the genus became long afterwards quite ])revalent. 



By Miiller (1844) the genus was put in the order Acanthopteri and in 

 the family Cyclopodi, but as the representative of a peculiar "group" 

 ("3. Gruppe. Echeneiden"). 



Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus. 82 3G Iflarch 33, 1 883. 



