Synopsis of the Higher Classification of the Plectognathi 



Order Plectognathi 

 Suborder Balistoidei (Sclerodermi) 

 Infraorder Triacanthoideo 

 Superfamily Triacanthoidea 

 Family Triacanthodidae: spikefishes 

 Subfamily Spinacanthinae (Eocene) 

 Subfamily Eoplectinae (Eocene) 

 Subfamily HoUardiinae (Recent) 

 Subfamily Triacanthodinae (Recent) 

 Family Triacanthidae: triplespines 

 Subfamily Protacanthodinae (Eocene) 

 Subfamily Cryptobalistinae (Oligocene) 

 Subfamily Triacanthinae (Oligocene to Recent) 

 Infraorder Balistoideo 

 Superfamily Balistoidea 



Family Balistidae (Oligocene to Recent): trigger- 

 fishes 

 Family Monacanthidae (Recent): filefishes 

 Superfamily Ostracioidea 

 Family Aracanidae (Eocene to Recent): boxfishes 

 Family Ostraciidae (Eocene to Recent): trunk- 

 fishes 

 Subfamily Ostraciinae 

 Subfamily Lactophrysinae 

 Suborder Tetraodontoidei (Gymnodontes) 

 Infraorder Triodontoideo 

 Superfamily Triodontoidea 

 Family Triodontidae (Eocene to Recent): pursefishes 

 Infraorder Tetraodontoideo 

 Superfamily Tetraodontoidea 

 Family Tetraodontidae (Eocene to Recent): puffer- 

 fishes 



Subfamily Tetraodontinae 

 Subfamily Canthigasterinae 



Family Diodontidae (Eocene to Recent): porcupine- 

 fishes 



Superfamily Moloidea 



Family Molidae (Miocene to Recent): giant ocean 

 sunfishes. 



Alternative arrangements of subordinal and lower 

 groupings are obviously possible and perhaps equally 

 appealing to some. One of these would be to recognize the 

 triacanthodids as subordinally distinct from both of the 

 two major lineages to which they gave rise, a suborder 

 Sclerodermi (Balistoidei), in this case comprising the 

 triacanthids, balistoids, and ostracioids but minus the 

 triacanthodids, and a suborder Gymnodontes 

 (Tetraodontoidei), with the triodontids, tetraodontoids, 

 and molids. Another would be to recognize both the 

 triacanthodids and triacanthids as subordinally distinct 

 from both the remainder of the suborder Sclerodermi (in 

 this case only the balistoids and ostracioids) and the sub- 

 order Gymnodontes (as above). Or, as Winterbottom 

 (1974) has so ably suggested, a recognition of a suborder 

 for the triacanthodids and triacanthids as distinct from a 

 suborder for all of the other plectognaths, with the latter 

 divided into two superfamilies, one for the balistoids and 

 ostracioids (the remnants of the Sclerodermi) and one for 

 the gymnodonts (as above) along with the Eocene 

 Eoplectus and its relatives. 



It is felt here that the entire constellation of overall 

 similarities and differences in both generalized and 

 specialized features between the various species and 

 higher categories support the reasonableness of con- 

 tinuing to divide the Plectognathi into two sub- 

 orders: the Sclerodermi for the basal triacanthodids 

 and their closely related triacanthids as well as the 

 balistoids and ostracioids derived from the latter, and 

 the Gymnodontes for the more modified tetraodontoids 

 and molids linked together through the triodontids to the 

 Eocene eoplectin triacanthodids. 



Historical Review of the Classification of the Plectognathi 



Since representatives of most of the major subgroups 

 of plectognaths occur in the Mediterranean and off the 

 Atlantic coast of Europe, they were familiar to the early 

 Greeks and Romans. A rather long article could be 

 devoted to just the pre-Linnaean occidental knowledge of 

 the plectognaths, for almost every naturalist who dealt 

 with fishes, from Aristotle to Marcgrave, made promi- 

 nent mention of various balistoids, ostracioids, 

 tetraodontoids, and molids (the similar oriental, 

 primarily Chinese, history of the plectognaths cannot be 

 dealt with here). Passing over those nearly 2,000 years 

 that intervened between Aristotle and the person who is 

 most often considered the founder of modem ich- 

 thyology, Peter Artedi, only one example of the type of 

 classificatory scheme that preceded Artedi's work need 

 be cited. 



In his "Historia Piscium," WiUughby (1686:22-25) 

 divided "fishes" (including elasmobranchs and 

 cetaceans) into 11 major categories, one of which was the 

 Pinnis uentalibus carentes, containing the plectognaths, 

 syngnathids, and swordfishes. 



Within any one of the 11 categories were described a 

 variable number of species, most of them based on the 

 literature of such previous naturalists as Clusius, Ron- 

 delet, Gesner, Marcgrave, Belon, Salviani, and Al- 

 drovandi, but with a few supposedly new species also 

 described. The types of fishes that occurred (Willughby 

 1686:143-164) in the "de Piscibus corpore contractiore vel 

 saltern non admodum lubrico, qui pinnis ventralibus 

 carent," or "Pinnis ventralibus carentes," were for the 

 most part plectognaths. This section consisted of 14 

 chapters, each of which described either a single species 



