87 353 



regard these bones as "dermo-epiotics". "for they directly overlie the epiotics, appearing like 

 a parostosis formed upon these bones.' Alisphenoids seem to him to be absent, and about 

 the posttemijoral he is indecided but inclined "to consider it homologous, to a certain extent 

 at any rate, with the supra- tempo ral of Amia." 



In the ethmoid he (p. 629) mentions a canal, which he (wrongly) takes "to be the con- 

 tinuation of the main slime canals, which also traverses the frontals." His account of the 

 development of the visceral and suspensory jiarts in the young is good and correct; only, as 

 far as 1 can see, the cartilage which according to Mai; Mukrich represents the metaptervgoid, 

 must belong to the entopterygoid; and it seems hardly credible that only 4 cartilaginous 

 branchial arches should be present, in as much as the adult possesses five. In the adult, 

 however, M.'s interpretations apparently contain some graver errors. He recognizes the 

 stylohyal C'interhyal'") and finds the hyoid consisting of "a cerate- and hypohyal", "the 

 epihyal being apparently absent"; but in saying (p. 638) that "the genio-hyoid element (i. e. the 

 glossohyal) does not appear to ossify and in fact has disappeared ', he certainly is wrong; 

 and regarding the suspensory parts, he considers the |)osterior infraorbital miy true antorbital) 

 as Ibc meta])terygoid, in si)ite of his observation of its being "separated from the symjjlectic 

 by a quantity of muscular tissue. " The anterior infraorbital he correctly regards as such. 

 Further he did not understand the interoperculum, which he, however, has seen, but mentions 

 as "a scale-like bone, v^'hich has no special representative in other Teleosts." He only describes 

 one pterygoid, ajiparently my ectopterygoid, and denies the existence of intermaxillaries, and 

 intero])erculuui, and about the preoi)ercuhim he says that it "appears to be absent, or at any 

 rate very rudimentary." 



Among the extremely detailed descriptions of the single bones, composing the skull of 

 Teleosts, which are contained in the work of v. Ki.EiN (26 b and c;, are some concerning the 

 Syngnathids {Sijngnalhiis. Hippocampus. Caslerotokeus, Leptoichthijs. Phyllopterijx \ (b) p. 135 

 he correctly states that no eye-muscle-canal is found; p. 136, that the parasphenoid — as in 

 Fistularia — does not reach the vomer anteriorly, which at all events does not hold good 

 for SynniKiUtiis and Hi}>pocampiis: p. lôO he mentions, that "ahe orbitales ' a. e. alisphenoids) 

 may be separateil from the "alæ temporales ' i e. the prootic^ in some Syngnathids; p. 234—36 

 the anterior, ethmovomerine, part is described at great length, but apparently correctly in 

 most respects (that nasals are lacking is not mentioned), (c) p. 128 the basioccipital condyle 

 is said to be about convex in Synç/nathus, decidedly convex in Gasterolokeus and Phi/llopleryx, 

 the first is certainly, the latter probably wrong, p. 157 under the lengthy description of the 

 exoccipitals, parietals are mentioned in Phijlloplenjx , but a thorough examination of the 

 detailed description of the "occipitalia externa" ii. e. the epiotics , found on p. 197—98, reveals 

 tliat the parietals in question must be the epiotics, while v. Ki.ein s "occipitalia externa" (or 

 epiotics are really the posttemporats; and quite the same will be found to be the case with 

 the parietals ascribed to Hippocampus on p. 197; they also are the epiotics, and the post- 

 temporal is taken to be "occipitale externum." On the other hand v. K. declares on p. 217, 

 where the supraoccipital is dealt with, that in Sfingiiathus the parietals are not separated 

 from the frontals. Finally on p. 251, under the "squama temporalis ' or pterotic, the following 

 statement is found: "Bei den mir bekannten Syngnathidæ reichen die Kiefersusi)ensorien, 

 welche die Seiten der röhrenförmigen Schnauze bilden, nicht an die squam;e", which is 

 wrong. 



S('.H.\1"F (50, p. 12) describes the cranial skeleton of Siphonostoma lyphle and figures the 

 skull from above (Fig. 4, the vomer omitted), and the whole head seen from the side (Fig. 18). 

 He regards the epiotic as parietal and with Mc. Mi'RRic.H the posttemporal as a "supra- 

 temporal. He rightly denies the existence of a nasal. In the suspensory part he, too, does 

 not recognize the preoperculum, which be takes to be the symplectic; he has correctly inter- 

 preted the infraorbitals and the palatine, but about the remaining pterygo-i)alatinc series he 

 only says: "Innerhalb dieser Infraorbitalia liegen die Pterygoidea, die hier jedoch nicht 

 berücksichtigt werden." The intermaxilla and maxilla are correctly observed, but regarding 

 the lower jaw is said: "Das Mandibulare ist stark entwickelt, -\rticulare, .\ngulare und Dentale 



