75 341 



By far the most complete and correct account of the skull is that of Güntheii (16 a, 

 p. 532). After having described the f^eneral form and the frontals he says: "The greater part 

 of the upper surface of the snout is formed by the ethmoid, whilst the vomer occupies the 

 anterior fourth or fifth. The |)ræfrontal is situated in front of the orbit, elongate and tri- 

 angular. TluMC is a deep and long groove on the side of the snout for tlie muscles of the 

 jaws; its bottom is entirely ossifietl, and formed by the tym|)anic (the quadratei, preoperculum, 

 entopterygoid, pre- and niesotympanic i,= metajiterygoid and syniplectic), these bones being 

 exceedingly long. The entopterygoid (= entopterygoid) and pretynipanic (= metapterygoid) 

 are situated immediately below the ethmoid, and provided with a crenulated ridge which is 

 externally visible. The bones which in other fishes constitute the bottom of the tym|)anic 

 cavity below the orbit, are carried forwards before the orbit in FisliiUiria: the epityuipanic 

 (= hyomandibular; appears to be absent." And later is added: "Turbinai bone (= nasal i very 

 small; infraorbitals none.' 



On page 530-31 the 3 opercular bones are correctly described, as well as the branclii- 

 ostegals, but in "F. serrata" G. (p. 534) incorrectly gives the numbers as 6. The absence of 

 gill-rakers is noted as well as the "series of three elongate patches of (villiform) teeth on 

 each side of the roof of the pharynx" and the long series of teeth on the lower pharyngeals; 

 features which already L.\céi>i:de (31, p. 02) had jiointed out (but L. regarded the operculum 

 as compo.sed of only one piece). "The glossohyal", Günther finally adds, "is exceedingly 

 long, half as long as the tube." 



Thus, with the exception of the statements, that the hyomandibular ("epitympanic") is 

 absent and a nasal ("turbinai") present, Günthers above-quoted description proves to be 

 quite correct; but except few remarks on the frontals he does not give any information what- 

 ever about the bones composing the brain-case. Ten years later D.\reste (11, p. 1089) gave 

 the following account, which seems inferior to that of Günther, and contains some errors 

 emphasized by me below: "Le type des Fistulaires est caractérisé tout dabord par l'allongement 

 de la région de la tête qui précède la cavité crânienne: les frontaux jirincipaux, très-allongés et 

 soudés entre eux, sont précédés par un ethmoïde excessivement long, lequel est lui-même 

 précédé par un vomer également assez long. Cet allongement des os antérieurs du crâne 

 s accompagne d'un allongement considérable de l'aile temporale; donc les trois os principaux, 

 temporal = hyomandibular , tympanique = metapterygoidi et jugal (=quadrate), sont sou- 

 dés au s])hénoide dans toute leur étendue. Au contraire, les mâchoires et l'aile palatine 

 sont fort petites. L'aile palatine s'unit au vomer non-seulement par le palatin, mais aussi 

 Ijar le ptérygoîdien interne. Les frontaux antérieurs sont très-écartés des palatins. La boîte 

 crânienne, très petite, ne porte pas de véritable crête. Les frontaux principaux s'unissent 

 aux mastoïdiens (=pterotics) et aux frontaux postérieurs. Les occipitaux externes (= epiotics) 

 l)résentent de très-grands iirolongement s osseux, qui s'étendent dans la région dorsale et 

 sont 1 exagération d'une disposition qui se rencontre chez les Mugilo'ides. ' 



Thus Üareste has not observed anything about the most remarkable points in the 

 composition of the brain-case either: the relation of the pterotics, and of the epiotics to their 

 neighbours and the absence of parietals etc. 



The first author to analyse in details the skull of Fistularia is Klein. 



Klein (26 b and c) has given most elaborate and painstaking descriptions of the single 

 bones composing the skull (not of the suspensorial nor the branchial skeletal parts\ descrip- 

 tions which hardly anybody will be able to understand without having the necessary prepa- 

 rations in his hands; and even so it is hard work to follow the author. 1 can therefore well 

 understand tlial Swinnerton (56 a, p. .575 has given up the "attempt to exi)lain the why and 

 the wherefore of Klein s tangle in describing the auditory region. " Nevertheless, the descrip- 

 tions arc generally very correct, but the interpretations are often more or less defii-ient. 

 Through careful study of Kl.'s work it will be evident, that — overlooking the dividing 

 suture - he regards the prootic and the i)ostfrontal as one piece, which together with the 

 ptcrotic he designates "ala temporalis"; as "ala orbitalis" he considers the alisi)henoid, which 

 he quite correctly describes with all niinutia'. The i)osltcnq)oral is regarded as "squama 



44* 



