PROCEEDINGS OF UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM. 263 
the free border of the upper jaw; in the latter the maxillary forms part 
of it; and thus it would be the Scopelidz that ELurypharynx would ap- 
proach, especially as it does not present the hyoidean barbel which has 
hitherto been indicated as characteristic of the Stomiatide. 
‘“ However, of all fishes it is to Malacosteus niger, Ayres, placed in 
the latter family by zoologists, that we are tempted to approximate the 
animal here under consideration; they alone present the simple arrange- 
ments of the suspensorium indicated above. 
“ But, finally, itis perhaps with the Anacanthini that its relations seem 
to be most real, whether we consider the form of the body, which greatly 
resembles that of Macrurus, or the absence of ventral fins, which is 
usual in certain animals of the group; thus several Ophid ide and all 
the Lycodide (the latter even having their branchial orifice reduced, 
although not to the degree that occurs in our animal) increase the prob- 
ability attaching to this view. However, the characters of Hurypha- 
rynx are so strongly marked that in any case it is necessary to regard it 
as the type of a new family; and of this it would be the sole represent- 
ative, unless subsequent investigations show that we must unite with 
it the genus Malacosteus.”—( Vaillant, op. cit.) 
We are unable to appreciate any affinity of Gastrostomus to any Ana- 
canthines, Physostomes, or typical Apods, nor does it seem to be at all 
related to Malacosteus, which has been universally considered to be a 
little modified Stomiatid. Our own conclusions are expressed in the 
following arrangement. 
The characters observed in the specimens collected by the Albatross 
may be segregated into several categories—(1) those disagreeing with 
structural characters exhibited by all normal Teleosts and which are 
paramount even to the characters usually considered to be of ordinal 
value; (2) those presumably common to the western and eastern Atlantic 
forms and which may be regarded as of family value; and (5) the char- 
acters alleged to be peculiar to Hurypharyne on one hand and on the 
other confirmed as to their discrepancy in the American form. In this 
order we here expose the cardinal characteristics of the Eurypharyn- 
goid fishes in advance of a monograph in which we propose to describe 
and illustrate in detail their morphology, and discuss their relationship 
to other fishes, and especially to the Saccopharyngids and eel like types 
generally. 
ORDER LYOMERL 
Fishes with five branchial arches* (none modified as branchiostegal 
or pharyngeal) far behind the skull; an imperfectly ossified cranium, 
articulating with the first vertebra by a basi-occipital condyle alone; 
only two cephalic arches, both freely movable, (1) an anterior denti- 
gerous one—the palatine, and (2) the suspensorial, consisting of the 
* “We find six pairs of interior branchial clefts, and consequently five branchia ” 
in Eurypharynz.—V AILLANT. 
