HoUard's (1853, 1854a, b, 1855) first contribution 

 was the "Monographie de la Famille des Balistides," 

 which described the differences and similarities of Ba- 

 tistes, Monacanthus, and Triacanthus, the three genera 

 he recognized. Whereas Alutera had previously been 

 recognized as a distinct genus by many workers, Hollard 

 relegated it to subgeneric rank, with the genus Mona- 

 canthus containing two subgenera, Monacanthus and 

 Aluteres. He believed these two types to be essentially 

 the same, except that the posterior end of the pelvis 

 protruded and was covered by modified scales (his 

 "pointe pelvienne") in Monacanthus, while the pelvis 

 remained covered by skin in Aluteres. One might notice 

 that in the excellent review of the group by Berry and 

 Vogele (1961) this concept still stands. Not only did 

 Hollard described the general anatomy, including os- 

 teology, viscera, integument, muscles, etc., but he also 

 gave systematic descriptions of all of the then known 

 species of balistoids and triacanthoids and described 

 many new species. 



Several years later, Hollard's (1857a) "Monographie 

 de la Famille des Ostraciontides" treated trunkfishes in 

 the same fine style as he had done with the other sclero- 

 derms. Hollard pointed out that, in the progression from 

 Triacanthus to Batistes to Monacanthus and Aluteres, 

 the pelvic fin and spiny dorsal fin elements decrease in 

 number and that in Ostracion there is no trace of either. 

 Thus, to Hollard (1857a: 125) the acanthopterygians and 

 malacopterygians "ne s'en separent pas d'une maniere 

 absolue, et que le caractere tire de la presence des rayons 

 epineux n'a qu'une valeur relative et conditionelle, bien 

 inferieure a celle que lui attribuaient Artedi et G. 

 Cuvier." Regarding the actual classification of the trunk- 

 fishes, it must be remembered that at this time a great 

 number of new species of plectognaths were being made 

 known by Bleeker and a host of others, and that Kaup 

 (1855) had just reviewed the ostracioids. Kaup synony- 

 mized many of Bleeker's species and defined a number of 

 new generic groups, as follows: Cibotion Kaup, 

 Laetophrys (sic) Swainson, Ostracion Linnaeus, Acerana 

 (sic) Gray (with four subgenera — Acerana Gray, 

 Capropygia Kaup, Kentrocapros Kaup, Anoplocapros 

 Kaup), Centaurus Kaup (for the larval Mola described 

 by Richardson [1845:52] as Ostracion boops). Hollard 

 did not wish to recognize as many generic and sub- 

 generic categories as Kaup had given. Whereas Kaup 

 had placed great importance on the number and place- 

 ment of cuirass spines, Hollard thought them to be of a 

 superficial or secondary nature and of no real value to an 

 understanding of the phylogeny of the trunkfishes. Thus, 

 Hollard recognized only two genera, Ostracion and 

 Aracana. Since Hollard had never seen a specimen of 

 Ostracion boops, he was correctly skeptical of it and 

 mentioned it only in passing — quite in contrast to 

 Kaup's establishing a new genus for it. 



The next in Hollard's (1857b) series of papers was the 

 "Etude sur les Gymnodontes," of the same high quality 

 as the preceding works. The osteological illustrations 

 that Hollard presented here were to be used by all sub- 

 sequent workers on plectognaths, and they were even 



reproduced by Gill (1892a). Hollard had at his dis- 

 position the unpublished manuscript left upon the death 

 of Bibron, who had been reviewing the pufferfishes and 

 had established in his manuscript numerous new genera, 

 some of which were in name only, for the diagnoses had 

 not yet been written. This manuscript was published al- 

 most in its original condition, with only a few notes add- 

 ed by Dumeril (1855), its editor. Bibron had completed 

 the diodontids, but was still working on the tetraodon- 

 tids at the time of his death. Suffice it to say that, on the 

 whole, Bibron's generic groupings were highly artificial 

 and are unacceptable in a modem phylogenetic classi- 

 fication. Hollard, for example, synonymized seven of 

 Bibron's genera {Dilobomycter, Aphanacanthus, 

 Amblyrhynchotus, Stenometopus, Geneion, 

 Epipedorhynchus, Promecocephalus) into one genus, to 

 which, unfortunately, he gave yet another new name, 

 Apsicephalus. 



The last, summarizing, article in Hollard's (1860) 

 series was the "Memoire sur le Squelette des Poissons 

 Plectognathes," in which he condensed all his 

 anatomical observations and arrived at the following 

 classification (p. 46; genera were not listed, but are here 

 inserted below as he recognized them in his previous 

 three articles): 



Plectognathes ou Echinoides 

 Sclerodermes 

 Balistides 

 Triacanthiens 

 TYiacanthus 

 Balistines 

 Batistes 

 Monacanthiens 

 Monacanthus 



subgenus Monacanthus 

 subgenus Aluteres 

 Ostracionides 

 Aracaniens 

 Aracana 

 Ostraciens 

 Ostracion 

 Gymnodontes 

 Loganiosomes ou 

 Triodoniens 

 Triodon 

 Spherosomes (Orbes epin.) 

 Tetrodoniens 

 Rhynchotus 

 Xenopterus 

 Batrachops 

 Apsicephalus 

 Brachycephalus 

 Monotreta 

 Diodoniens 

 Diodon 



mes ou 

 Orthagorisciens 



Ort- agoriscus. 



