Xll 



so stated) provisional order Lemniscati (which, as he subsequently urged, 1 

 was a heterogeneous group based upon the larvae of other fishes but pri 

 marily those of Muraenidae), and adopting among the Teleost series the 

 orders OPISTHOMI, HEMIBRAXCHII, and SCYPHOPHORI (Cope), the last 

 of which was subsequently approximated by the author 3 to the XEMATOG- 

 NATHI, a view since confirmed by Prof. Cope. 



All the orders thus adopted, so far as considerable material indicate, 

 appear to be well distinguished by peculiarities of the skeleton and the 

 nervous system. The peculiarities of the skeleton are expressed in the 

 skull, (1) especially in the varying combinations of the elements which 

 compose the cranial box, as well as (2) the palato-pterygoid system, and 

 (3) the suspensorium of the lower jaw, while in (4) the modifications of 

 the shoulder girdle, other excellent characters are found. These are to a 

 greater or less extent co-ordinated with and confirmed by (5) the develop 

 ment of the brain, especially the internal structure of the optic lobes and 

 the relations of the various parts. These characters certainly seem to be 

 of more importance than the development of some of the bones that sustain 

 the fins as (pro} rays or as (con) spines, and as there is no co-ordination 

 between the latter developments and other modifications of structure, the 

 groups so distinguished must be admitted to have a very unsatisfactory 

 basis. And surely it is rather illogical to urge that other characters are 

 of little importance because they do not coincide with the structure of the 

 fin-rays, for the question at issue is taken for granted. But so wedded 



1 GILL (Theodore Nicholas). On the Affinities of several doubtful British Fishes, 



.... &amp;lt;: Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 

 1864, pp. 207-208; reprinted (in part). &amp;lt; Annals and Magazine of Natural 

 History, 3d series, v. 15, 1864, p. 4. 



Dr. Giinther subsequently endorsed these views in general (v. 8, p. 137), but hav 

 ing mistaken the tenor of the remarks of the author, has afterwards stated, in respect 

 to Stomiasunculus, that he &quot;cannot agree with Mr. Gill, who compares this fish to a 

 larval Clupeoid&quot; (v. 8, p. 145). It will be evident, however, on reperusal, that I by 

 no means meant to suggest that Stomiasunculus had any affinity with Clupeoids, 

 the statement being that &quot; Stomiasunculus resembles, in general features, a less 

 advanced [than Esunculus] Clupeoid, about three days old, in which the ventral fins 

 have not yet appeared.&quot; The comparison of the form in question with the larval 

 Clupeoid was evidently simply to verify the probability of the immature condition 

 of Stomiasunculus, but the true affinities were sought for elsewhere. It was added, 

 &quot; suspicion, however, may be entertained that it may, perhaps, be the young of some 

 other type (possibly Stomiatoids), on account of the backward position of the dorsal Jin.&quot; 

 Such is also the opinion of Dr. Giinther himself, who remarks that &quot;this is evidently 

 the young of Stomias or of a fish very closely allied to it.&quot; More than this, the evi 

 dence would not authorize. 



2 GILL (Theodore Nicholas). Synopsis of the Fishes of the Gulf of St. Lawrence and 



Bay of Fundy, .... &amp;lt;Tho Canadian Naturalist and Geologist (Montreal), 

 2d series, v. 2, 1864, p. 262. 



