REPORT ON ZOOLOGY. 181 



doubtedly much, very much remains still to be done before we 

 can consider these details as not susceptible of any further im- 

 provement. Cuvier's groups are on the whole natural and 

 well characterized ; but the true position of many of them is 

 extremely doubtful *, and their relative value as yet undeter- 

 mined. He has done much, however, towards determining the 

 value of certain characters which had been considered in very 

 different points of view by former ichthyologists, especially that 

 derived from the structure of the dorsal Vays, He states it to be his 

 firm opinion, deduced from a careful study of the entire organi- 

 zation in several hundred species, that the acanthopterygious 

 fishes ought to be kept quite distinct from the others, and that 

 whatever characters may be resorted to for the further svibdivision 

 of the normal fishes, they must be held subordinate to the one 

 above mentioned. It is mainly in consequence of having attached 

 too little importance to this character, and set too high a value 

 upon that derived from the position of the ventrals, that Lin- 

 naeus and several of the more recent authors have entirely failed 

 in their attempts at a natural arrangement of this class. No one 

 has made better use than Cuvier of the characters derived from 

 the structure of the jaws f, and the nature and position of the 

 teeth ; and perhaps in certain groups we can hardly select any 

 of more importance. For the teeth he has adopted a peculiar 

 set of terms, expressive of the different forms which they assume. 

 These terms are, however, better adapted to the French than to 

 the English language. On the whole, it may be observed, that 

 although there may be some parts of his arrangement found de- 

 fective, Cuvier has done more for this department of zoology 

 than any one else. His Histoire des Poissons must ever be 

 considered as forming a real epoch in ichthyology. If we look 

 to the profound erudition it displays, the thorough knowledge 

 of its author with respect to all that had been done by previous 

 writers on this class, the close and accurate researches which 

 he has made into every part of the internal as well as external 

 organization of the subjects of which he treats, the minuteness 

 of detail which characterizes the description of species, at the 



• It is more than probable that Cuvier has in some instances mistaken re- 

 lations of analogy for those of affinity. One such instance has been pointed 

 out by Mr. Bennett (see Zool. Journ., vol. iii. p. 372,) in the case of the genus 

 Lophius. 



t Cuvier first called the attention of naturalists to this part in a memoir 

 published in 1815, in the iirst volume of the Mem. du Museum (p. 102.). One 

 of the conclusions at which he arrives is, that the characters derived from the 

 pieces of the upper jaw and palatine arch, their various positions, proportions, 

 &c., serve to indicate genera, but cannot be employed in distinguishing orders, 

 if we wish to preserve natural affinities. 



