30 



and then succeeded the residuum in which no very salient characters were developed, 

 and whose heterogeneous contents were classified by the number of the fins. But 

 while such was the case theoretically, practically it was quite otherwise, and fancy 

 urged the approximation to the types of his groups of forms on account of supposed 

 resemblances and in forgetfulness of the characters, and which, at another time> 

 under the influence of other ideas, he had referred elsewhere. The nominal species 

 thus scattered, in the several cases, were, however, severally derived from different 

 sources. 



A few examples need only be given in demonstration of the truth of these criti- 

 cisms. The Eels and Loaches (Cobitidae), having the branchial fissures very narrow, 

 were referred to the Fishes with concealed gills, but several species (e. g. Cobitidae, 

 3 sp.) reappear in the other section under the genus Enehelyopus, — the author, over- 

 looking the character of the branchial apertures, having happened to be struck by 

 the resemblance of such forms as were depicted by other authors to certain species for 

 which he had more especially framed the genus : in like manner, species were dupli- 

 cated under the genera Enehelyopus and Callarias, Enehelyopus and Leuciscus, and in 

 fact, almost every other genus with numerous species contained some that had been 

 referred elsewhere. In cases like Mastaccembelus, Psalisostomus, and Solenostomus, 

 distinguished — one, by the projection of the lower jaw; the second by that of the 

 upper ; and the third by the tubular snout, it might be supposed a saliency of char- 

 acter existed which would prevent grossly erroneous references, but it has not detained 

 our author from referring to them species entirely opposed in character. Another 

 mode of procedure is illustrated by the reference of forms to the group distinguished 

 by the "eyes." This was originally suggested by the Heterosomata distinguished by 

 the peculiarity of the two eyes on the same side, but our author has referred to the 

 same (distinguished by the eyes) two combinations of species (Rhombotides=Chseto- 

 dontidae pp. and Platiglossus, related to Julis) because, although having no distinct- 

 ive character whatever in the eyes, he evidently fancied a resemblance between one 

 (Rhombotides) and Rhombus (Pleuronectidae), and the other (Platiglossus) and Solea. 



The following abstract, selected from his work (Miss, v, p. 00), will give a fuller 

 idea of his system. The incongruity of his genera prevents a comparison with modern 

 types, except in a few cases. 



^ Pulmonibus spirantes sunt Physeteres. [Cete.] Blaser Missu II. 



Spiraculis ad latera : Cynocephalus, Galeus, Pristis, Cestraciom 

 Rhina [=Sq0Ali]; Batrachus ; Crayraciou, Capriscus [=Plec- 

 tognathi] ; Conger, Muraena [=Apodes] ; Petrora vzon. 

 Spiraculis in thorace: Narcacion, Rhinobatus, Leiobatus, Dasy- 



batus [=Raiae]. 

 Forma: Balsense formis. Missu IV. Fasc. i. Silurus. 

 Rostra: Fasc. ii. Acipenser, Latargus [=Anarrhicas], Xiphias, 

 Mastaccembelus [=Belone pp.], Psalisostomus, Solenostomus 

 [=Fistularia L. pp.], Amphisilen. 

 Oculis. Fasc. iii. Solea, Passer, Rhombus, Rhombotides s. 



Europus, Tetragonoptrus, Platiglossus. 

 Armatura. Faso. iv. Cataphractus [=Triglidae pp.], Coristion, 



Centriscus [=Gasterosteus-f-Centriscus]. 

 In slemo §■ in capite. Fasc. v. Oncotion [=Cyclopterus], Eche- 

 Branchiis neis. 



apertis J Corpore volubili. Fasc. vi. Enehelyopus. 



Buanchiis 



occultis 

 Missu III. 



S \ 



