PROCEEDINGS OF UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM. 563 



of disiutegTating- this family, because, infer alias, the typical Scombe- 

 roides (family Scombridse) had more than twenty-four vertebrse and <;thers 

 (family Carangidae) had just 24. The assumption of Cu\ier as to the 

 relationship of Elacate was repeated, but inasmuch as it has " more than 

 24 vertebrse" (it has 25 = 12 + 13) it was severed from the free-spined 

 Carangidse* and associated with the Scombridse. Elacate has an elon- 

 gated body, flattish head, and a colored longitudinal lateral band ; 

 Echeneis has also an elongated body, flattened head, and a longitudinal 

 lateral band ; therefore Eclieneis was considered to be next allied to 

 Elacate and to belong to the same family ! The very numerous differ- 

 ences in structure between the two were en^rely ignored, and the refer- 

 ence of Echeneis to the Scombridse is simply due to assumption piled 

 on assumption. The collocation need not, therefore, longer detain us. 

 The possession by Eclieneis of the anterior oval cephalic disk in place 

 of a spinous dorsal fin would alone necessitate the isolation of the 

 genus as a peculiar family. But that difference is associated with 

 almost innumerable other peculiarities of the skeleton and other 

 parts, and in a logical system it must be removed far from the Scom- 

 bridse, and probably be endowed with subordinal distinction. In all 

 essential respects it departs greatly from the type of structure mani- 

 fested in the Scombroidea and rather approximates — but very distantly 

 — the Gobioidea and Blennioidea. In those types we have in some a 

 tendency to flattening of the head, or anterior development of the dor- 

 sal fin, a simple basis cranii, etc. Nevertheless there is no close affinity 

 nor even any tendency to the extreme modification of the spinous dorsal 

 exhibited by Eclieneis. In view of all these facts Eclieneis, with it sub- 

 divisions, may be regarded as constituting not only a family but a 

 suborder, which is definable as follows : 



Suborder DISCOCEPHALI. 



Synonymy. 



srDiscocephalij -BZeeto', Enum. sp. Piscium arcMpel. Ind., p. xxvi, (order; not de- 

 fined), 1859. 



=Echeneidoidea, Gill, Arrangement Fam. Fishes, p. 12, (super family ; not defined), 

 1872. 



Teleocephali with a suctorial transversely laminated oval disk on the 



* "This family [Carangidse] forms a very natural division, widely \_sic!'\ differing 

 from the Scombridse in the structure of the vertebral column, which is composed of 

 ten abdominal and fourteen caudal vertebrae. The only exception is found in the ge- 

 nera Chorinemus and Teinnodon." {Gthr. Cat. Fishes B. M., v. 2, p. 417.) Besides the 

 genera specially excepted, according to Dr. Giinther's own figures, the following fal- 

 sify his generalization, viz : Caranx goreensis (p. 457) — "Vert. 10 | 16"; Psettus argen- 

 /eMS (p. 488)— " Vert. 9 | 14"; Plataxartliriticus (i). 491)— "Yevt. 11 | 13"; Zanclus cor. 

 nutus (p. 493)— "Vert. 9 | 13"; Capros apfir(p. 496)— "Vert. 10 | 12-13"; Equula fas- 

 ciata (p. 498) — " Vert. 10 | 13." There are a number of other exceptions, but their 

 consideration is not called for in this place. 



