350 



84 



Transcribed into the formula used by nie in the present paper the above I'oiinula 

 would be: 



Gill arch ,,^^011131 "yP""^'"- I Ceratobr. I Epibr. I P^a^yngo- 



I 



II 



III 



IV 



V 



+ 



+ 



+ 



+ 



+ 

 + 



+ 

 + 

 + 



+ 



If we compare my formula on p. 307 [41] of the present paper the difference will he 

 easily perceived at once. 



CuviEU (Lauiullahd) (9 b, p. 646) gives the following account of the Lo phobranches: 

 "Ces poissons ont ... le squelette plutôt fibreux qu'osseux; cependant la composition du crâne 

 ne s'écarte point de celle des poissons osseux. Dans le syngnathe, l'orbite est complètement 

 fermé, en avant, en haut et en arrière, par les frontaux, et en bas par le temporal (= hyo- 

 mandibulan et le préopercule, qui font l'office de soùs-orbitaires; le museau est très alongé. 



Uhyppocampe a le museau moins long, les fronfaux étroits, et porlanl au dessus de 

 l'orbite chacun une apophyse presque verticale qui forme une sorte de corne. La partie 

 postérieure du crâne est pyramidale et creusée de chaque côte à la face occipitale d'une fosse 

 profonde formée par le mastoïdien (= pterotic) et l'occipital externe (= epiotic)." Nothing is 

 found about the other cranial structures, neither in the volume quoted nor in the follow- 

 ing volumes. 



The work of KOSTLIN (30) contains some scattered remarks ipp. 309, 317, ,337, 338, 342, 356, 

 361, 370, 378, 394, 400) concerning the skull, but they are so defective and incomiilele, that it 

 seems hardly possible to decide, if he had a tolerably correct understanding of its structure 

 or not. The suspensorial and branchial parts are not mentioned. 



HoLLARD (18, p. .')65), who is of the opinion that the "'Lophobranches " are to be com- 

 bined with the "Ganoides proprement dits", only mentions the opercular apparatus in the 

 Syngnathiils. He describes the large operculum as well as the small subo]jerculum ; the 

 interopei'culum apparently is overlooked. Regarding the preoperculum is said: "Confondu 

 en avant avec la série sous-maxillaire, il n'est reconnaissable qu à ses rapports avec l'hyoïde. 

 Ce dernier lui-même ne porte plus ici que deux ou trois rayons branchiostéges filiformes " 



Khöye« (29) in describing the single species of Fi])efishes found at the Danish coasts, 

 has given some osteological information which must be said to be of value and, taken together, 

 to render a more complete and correct account of the structure of the skull than it would 

 be possible to gather from any of his predecessors. 



On 1). 679 (Siphonostoma typhle) he states that he could only observe two long, very 



