THE 



A Q U A R I I M 



^ 



B. Fries, as early as 1837, first described 

 the species, having met with the dried 

 specimen in the State Museum of Stock- 

 holm. It was then a new form, and he 

 placed it with the Scowbridcc, claiming 

 that Pteraclis was the nearest relative. 



Nineteen years subsequently, Profes- 

 sor Nilsson examined the same specimen 

 studied by Fries, and came to the con- 

 clusion that Pterycombus was most near- 

 ly related to Brama, and together with 

 this genus he arrayed both with the 

 Sqnamif>innes. Ten years later. Profes- 

 sor Lilljeborg proved that the latter re- 

 lationship was only a remote one, and 

 that both species were scombridine 

 types, so he arrayed them with the 

 Scombridce. 



Lutken, Gill, Jordan and Gilbert all 

 followed their predecessors and retained, 

 in their several works, Pteyycombus 

 brama in the family Bramida:. 



Here the taxonomy of the form prac- 

 tically stood until Professor Collett pub- 

 lished his paper on the subject, and 

 which, as has been pointed out above, 

 I published in English with added notes. 

 In that paper, as well as in my trans- 



Platc II. 



Left lateral view of the articulated skeleton of Pieyycom 



bus brama, Fries. Both plates by Shufeldt after Collett. 



lation, Collett states: "In its skeletal 

 characters Pterycombus comes nearest 

 Byai7ia; but it departs from that species 

 in a number of osteological details or 

 characters, especially in the morphology 

 of the spinal column. The massive de- 

 velopment of the ribs is particularly 

 striking, the neural spines and the dor- 

 sal interspinals form together an almost 

 solid, perpendicular wall of bone, which 

 is entirely different from anything known 

 as pertaining to the other genera of the 

 Scombyoids. In this respect it so far de- 

 parts from what we find in its apparent- 

 ly nearest relative Brama, that it should 

 probably be placed in a family by it- 

 self." 



This, however, is as far as Professor 

 Collett ever went in this matter, and in 

 a foot-note on page 46 of my transla- 

 tion, I further remarked that "The 

 skeletal and other characters, given 

 above by Professor Collett, found in 

 Pterycombus brama are ample, in my 

 opinion, to justify the establishment of 

 the family Pterycombidae." But up to 

 the present moment, neither I, nor any 

 other naturalist, as far as I am aware, 

 have actually placed on 

 record, or published, the 

 establishment of any 

 such family. 



I am still convinced, 

 and Professor Collett 

 writes me that he is still 

 convinced, that the 

 skeletal structure o f 

 Pterycombus brama is 

 alone sufficient to entitle 

 it to family rank, and 

 this should be accorded 

 it, if foi no other rea- 

 son than to widen the 

 gap between it and 



