562 PJIOCEEDINGS OF UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM. 



By Agassiz aud Holbrook, aud later by Glintlier* (1860), it was trans- 

 ferred to the family Scombridie, next to Elacate. 



By Bleeker (1859) the genus was entitled with family rank (Echenoi- 

 dei) and also ordinally distinguished (with the name "ordo 38. Disco- 

 cephali") and interposed between "ordo 37. Fistulariae," and "ordo 39. 

 Cyclopteri." 



By Cope (1870) it has been retained next to some Scombroid fishes 

 (the Carangidae), but as a distinct family, and placed in his order " Per- 

 comorphi" and suborder "Distegi." 



In later years the views of Miiller, and subsequently of Swainsou and 

 Giinther, have been generally adopted hj European ichthyologists. In 

 my "Arrangement of the families of fishes" the family Echeneididse has 

 been relegated to the categorj^ of Teleocephali " incertce sedis.^^ A de- 

 sire to reach some defiuite conclusion has induced me to examine its 

 osteological as well as other characteristics, and has resulted in the fol- 

 lowing conclusions : 



The ventral fins being furnished with true spines, the fish is not a 

 Malacopterygian, but an Acanthopterygian of Artedi, Cuvier, etc. The 

 opposite reference to the Malacopterygians was due, in the first place, 

 to the failure of Artedi and the older naturalists to appreciate the ditter- 

 ence between slender spines and "soft rays," and subsequently to the 

 assumption, without attempt at verification, by Cuvier, of the correct- 

 ness of his predecessors' statements. 



The "basis cranii" is not double but simple, and there is no "tube." 

 The type, therefore, is not at all related to the Scombridae, Carangidae, 

 and other typical fishes, and consequently does not belong to the sub- 

 order "Distegi" of Cope. 



The contrary statement implied by Professor Cope is due, doubtless, 

 to the preoccupation of his mind with the idea as to the affinity claimed 

 to exist between Echeneis and the Scombridae, and the consequent as- 

 sumption that the former had a hasis cranii like the latter. Inasmuch 

 as the cranial cavity is partly closed, the true state of affairs can only 

 be seen on opening or bisecting the skull, and this has probably been 

 neglected. The group would really be referable to the suborder Scypho- 

 branchii in Professor Cope's system, were it not for the form of the third 

 pair of upper pharyngeal bones. 



But what could have been the reason for referring the fish to the 

 family Scombridae (as contradistinguished from the Carangidae) as a 

 simple genus? 



The family of " Scomberoides" was constituted by Cuvier for certain 

 forms of known organization, among which were fishes evidently related 

 to Caranx, but which had free dorsal spines. In the absence of knowl- 

 edge of its structure, the genus Elacaie was approximated to such be- 

 cause it also had free dorsal spines. Dr. Giinther conceived the idea 



'On the History of Echeneis. By Dr. Albert Giinther. <Aun. and Mag. Nat. BList. 

 (3), V. 5, pp. 386-40-2. 1860. 



