ON THE RELATIONS OF CYCLOPTEROIDEA. 



BY 



Theodore Gill, M.D., Ph.D. 

 (With Plates xxviii-xxx.) 



By the older naturalists, Gyclopterus aud its relatives were placed 

 among the cartilaginous fishes. Cuvier recognized that the forms in 

 question were true bony fishes, but ])laced them among the Jugular 

 Malacopterygians and in a family to which he gave the name "Disco- 

 boles" and with them associated the Gobiesocids and Echeneidids. 

 More recent authors placed them among the Acanthopterygians, and 

 Giinther combined them with the Cottidw, /Scomftrif/ffandvarioas heter- 

 ogeneous forms in the division '^ Cotto sGomhrifonnes.^^ None of these 

 recognized any relation between the Cyclopteroids and the mail- 

 cheeked fishes, although the development of a suborbital bone as a 

 stay in lAparididcv was recognized long ago — among others by Pallas 

 aud Giinther. 



The osteological characters (not specified, however,) determined Pro- 

 fessor Putnam to refer them to the neighborhood of the Cottidw. 

 Says Professor Putnam : 



I should with Giinther put the family of Gohlesocidw fiir away, at least a suborder 

 off, from the Cyclopteridm and Liparididw, which are far more closely uuited to the 

 true Cottidw, represented by Coitus aud Hemitripferus, than to either the Gobiesocidce 

 proper or to the Gobies aud Bleunies. In fact Liparis lias as close affinities, as shown 

 by its skeleton, with Cottiis aud HemUriptems as with Gyclopterus, aud we have iu 

 the three groups represented by Coitus, Liparis, and Cijdopterus, well-marked families 

 of the same suborder. The only character by which the Cydopter'idn} aud Liparidid(v 

 are closely uuited consists iu the peculiar formation of the ventral disk by the union 

 of the ventral iins, but as this structure is simply brought about by the modification 

 of the rays in a manner common to the several genera, and not by any marked anatom- 

 ical difference in the structure of the same fins iu Coitus, I can only look upon it 

 as a generic character common to the known representatives of both families of 

 Cyclopieridce aud Liparidida^, aud the discovery of a representative of either family 

 with ventral fins of the ordinary form would not necessitate the establishment of a 

 family for its reception, as iu that case we would simply consider the structure as of 

 generic value.* 



* Notes on Liparis and Cydopterus. By F. W. Putnam. Proc. Am. Ass. Adv. Sc, 

 V. 22, p. 337, 1874. 



Proceedings National Museum, Yol. XIII. — No. 834. 



361 



