60 PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM vol. 124 



Two nostrils on each side. Gill openings somewhat restricted below. 

 Circumorbital series of bones firmly connected, complete, with a sub- 

 ocular shelf from the second. Medial extrascapular not fused to the 

 parietal. Front and rear of the suspensorium loosely connected. Prootic 

 forming a part of the internal orbital border or not. Basisphenoid 

 present. 



Pectoral actinosts columnar, four in number, the upper pectoral ray 

 articulating with the scapula. Pelvic fins minute or absent; if present, 

 the interspace between them less than the distance across one pelvic 

 base. 



The suborder is entirely inshore, tropical Indo-West Pacific in 

 distribution. 



The families included here in the Congrogadoidae are the Congro- 

 gadidae, Notograptidae, and very provisionally the Peronedyidae. In 

 1952 Smith divided the Congrogadidae of Regan (1912d) into two 

 families, the Congrogadidae and Haliophidae. This seems, however, 

 an unnecessary proliferation of families among obviously related fishes. 

 Besides, the type of Congrogadus heirichthys and, for that matter, 

 juveniles of C. subducens fall between the two families as Smith defines 

 them. 



So far as the congrogadids and notograptids are concerned, a 

 relationship between the two families needs demonstration. This is 

 by no means easy, despite the general eel-like form in both; however, 

 both have a subocular shelf on the second suborbital bone, a feature 

 held in common with Trachinus and many percoids. Second, though 

 the mechanism is different in the two families, both have a suspen- 

 sorium in which the anterior half is connected only weakly with the 

 posterior portion. Third, the soft dorsal and anal rays show a type of 

 branching that does not extend to the base but in which the posterior, 

 but not the anterior branch, redivides. (The Peronedyidae are based 

 on a single Australian species I have not seen, the affinities of which 

 are doubtful. It will not be discussed here.) 



Granting a relationship between notograptids and congrogadids, 

 the question then arises as to what the two families are in turn related 

 to. Smith (1952, p. 87) suggests that the congrogadids may be aberrant 

 percoids. This is a distinct possibility, but Smith's further suggestion 

 of "Spariform relations" seems most improbable. The anterior pelvic 

 position of Notograptus and certain congrogadid genera and the 1 : 1 

 relationship between dorsal and anal rays and vertebrae suggest the 

 Blennioidei, and there seems to be no reason to deny them such 

 an allocation. 



An effort to locate possible relatives of the Congrogadoidae has 

 led to an investigation of certain other eel-shaped fishes. The results, 

 though negative, may be noted briefly. 



