NO. 2. |] GRAMMICOLEPIS BRACHIUSCULUS. 291 
Now my material on this occasion will not admit of such a 
thing as an analysis of characters for comparison. In my opin- 
ion, without a thorough examination of the entire organization 
of not only the forms at my command at the present writing, 
but several others, such a tabulated synopsis, made up at the 
best from such fragmentary material, would be of but little ser- 
vice to us. The structure of Sevzo/a taken in the present con- 
nection would come handsomely into play. aucrates ductor 
would be another good form to examine. 
From a comparison of the crania alone, I should say that the 
relation between Grammzicolepis and such a fish as Pomacanthus 
paru was very distant, while its affinity with Zeuthzs ceruleus 
is still more remote. I should have liked, however, to have ex- 
amined some of the Sa/istide, and perhaps glanced at one or 
two more of the Chetodonts. 
Figure 11.— Left lateral view of the cranium of a specimen of Teuthis ceruleus ; 
life size. Kindly loaned the author by Professor Gill. Letters have the same signifi- 
cance as in the foregoing figures. 
Its relationship with the Carangid@, as Professor Poey pre- 
dicted, is far more evident, though this, too, is extremely indi- 
rect, and many forms still unknown to us are required to 
demonstrate the connection. 
These forms must especially show an increased density in the 
cranial bones ; a decrease in the size of the eye and orbits; a 
gradual disappearance of the rugose condition of some of the 
flat bones of the cranium, particularly the frontals; a gradual 
protrusion of the snout; and finally the development of the 
parial cranial crests. 
Of the shoulder girdle. — Although a number of the bones are 
