270 PROCEEDINGS OF UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM. 
and other elements are atrephied or entirely absent. The Murznids* 
are those forms exhibiting the greatest degree of degradation of the 
cephalic arches. But it is by no means certain yet that the Eurypharyn- 
gids are derived from the same primitive stock as the Murenids. On 
the contrary, the evidence thus far furnished by our anatomical inves- 
tigations lead us to believe that they are the offshoots of a primitive 
phylum cognate with the specialized Apodes, but far back in the phy- 
letic history of those diversiform (or rather diversistructural) fishes. The 
common characters are rather the results of teleological modification 
resulting from analogous conditions, or rather conditions entailing 
analogous structures, than of common origin. For the present, there- 
fore, we propose to isolate the Eurypharyngids as the representatives 
of a distinct order and to place that order next to the Apodes. As an 
ordinal name we propose Lyomeri, t by which we intend to point at the 
loose connection of the palatine and suspensorial elements and the iso- 
lation of the branchial and scapular arches from the cranium. 
Whether any of the other known types of fishes belong to this order 
is very doubtful, and, in fact, we have sufficient data respecting them 
to be tolerably certain that none do, unless it may be the Saccopharynx 
jlagellum. Saccopharynx is a very peculiar type, the representative of 
quite an isolated family, but its structure is almost unknown. The last 
systematic writer who has referred to its characters (Dr. Giinther) has 
described the genus as consisting of ‘‘deep-sea congers, with the mus- 
cular system very feebly developed, with the bones very thin, soft, and 
wanting in organie matter; head and gape enormous”; “maxillary and 
mandibulary bones very thin, slender, arched, armed with one or two 
series of long, slender, widely set teeth, their points being directed in- 
wards,” &¢.t Dr. Giinther’s “maxillary” bones are doubtless palatines, 
and his description is very deficient in precision, but supplemented as 
it is by the descriptions of Mitchill and Harwood, it is evident that the 
genus Saccopharyna, or family Saccopharyngide, is quite remote from 
the Eurypharyngide. More than this can only be surmised at most till 
its structural characteristics are determined.’ 
The question must hereafter arise whether the fishes examined by M. 
Vaillant and ourselves are the same or really distinct generic types. 
Little value is to be attached to the relative extension (within the 
limits observed) of the jaws, but the proportions of the cranium (if con- 
firmed) would indicate that the two forms exhibit marked differences, 
and our respect for the eminent French naturalist will not permit us to 
* Weunderstand by the term ‘‘ Murenids” the natural family represented by Murana 
and closely related genera only, and not the heterogenous medley called the “ family 
Murenide” by Dr. Giinther. See Cope’s memoirin Trans. Am. Phil. Soc., v. 14, p. 456; 
Gill’s ‘‘ Arrangement of the families of Fishes,” p. 20, and Jordan & Gilbert’s ‘ Syn- 
opsis of the Fishes of North America,” p. 355. 
t AvoS, loose, and sepos, part or segment. 
¢ Giinther (Albert C. L. G.): An Introduction to the Study of Fishes, 1880, p. 670. 
ne 
