160 PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM. vol. xxviii. 



the Athermida^ rather than the OphidioideL'''' "The family i.s placed 

 by Jordan and Gilbert between the Percesoces and the Scombroldei. 

 Knowinj^- no better place for it we leave it next to the PerceHocemy 



In 1901 A. Smith Woodward, acting- under the advice of A. Boulen- 

 g-er/' referred the family to the Percesoces, next before the Scombre- 

 socidffi and after the extinct Crossognathida?, in the first section of the 

 suborder, the second embracing those having " pelvic hns with anterior 

 spine." 



In 1908 David Starr Jordan isolated in a distinct genus {EmhoUchthys) 

 a hsli previously described by fJordan and P^vermann (1902) as Bleeheria 

 mlUlhuri I . So similar is it to BleeheTia^ and therefore to Ainmodytes^ 

 that the existence of jugular ventral tins was at tirst overlooked. 

 Later they were discovered and the bearing of their existence on the 

 question of relationship of the family considered. Their presence, 

 Jordan declared, "shows that the A/zu/iodi/t/'dw h&vG no affinity with 

 the Percesoces, nor with the extinct family of Cohltojjsidse. Their 



Fig. 1. — Embolichthys mitsikurii. 



place must be near the Ophidiidte, as supposed by earlier and some 

 recent writers." 



In 1904 Boulenger reiterated the views published by Woodward, 

 combining Scombresocida^ and Ammodytida^ alone in a first section of 

 the suborder Percesoces. 



The discovery of jugular veutrals in Emboliehthyx. is extremely 

 impoi'tant and conclusively demonstrates (that genus being undoubt- 

 edly related to Aniinodytes) that tiie family is not at all related to the 

 Percesoces and that the affiliation, with the family, of the extinct 

 Cohitopsis was misjudged. The question then recurs, What is the rela- 

 tionship of the family^ An examination of various species of Ammo- 

 dytids reminded the writer of the genus Ilemerocoetes^ of New Zealand. 

 That remarkable genus has a form considerably like an Ammodytid's; 

 all the dorsal rays are simple but articulated, and curiously the supra- 

 maxillaries are produced into anterior spiniform tips. The condition 

 of the scapular arch, however, appears to be different; nevertheless 

 the resemblance in many respects is so great as to demand a compara- 

 tive anatomical investigation. 



« ' ' For the determination of the systematic position of this genus, the writer is 

 indebted to Mr. G. A. Boulenger." (A. Smith Woodward, IV, p. 354.) 



