PISHES. 387 



membrane, or of both ; in fine, the last subdivisions are taken from 

 the relative position of the ventral or pectoral fins ; a very regular 

 distribution, and which gives thirty-two orders conceived a priori, but 

 of which fifteen have not been filled up on account of not having 

 found in nature fishes which would be related to it, and of which 

 several would appear to have been added from error, which has caused 

 it to be believed that the operculum or the membrane was wanted to 

 fishes which really possessed them, such as the mormyri, the murenas, 

 and the symbranches. 



This method, beside the misplacement of thelophius and the lump- 

 fishes, and the continual mixture of the malacopterygians with the 

 acanthopteiygians, which had already been the case in that of Lin- 

 naeus, would have the disadvantage of placing the murena and syn- 

 branchia, at a great distance from the eels, which resemble them so 

 much ; if in relation to this particularity of its distribution, it was not 

 founded, as we have just said, on characters of which have no real 

 existence. Nevertheless, M. Dumeril has preserved these orders in 

 his method, which is in reality that of M. de Lacepede, subdivided 

 after the form of the bodies and other details, in order to bring them 

 as near as it was possible to the natural families ; but the interposition 

 of the characters taken from the ventral fins prevent us from amving 

 at this conclusion. 



We see, also, the lophius with the balistes and the chimera, the cod 

 with vives and the star-gazers. Another family unites the cecilias, 

 monopteries, and the ophisures, which are eels ; the notopteres, which 

 are herrings ; the trichiures, which resemble the scombres, &c. 



The same causes have led M. M. Risso and Rafinesque to similar 

 results in the combinations which they have endeavoured to make of 

 the methods of Pennant and de Lacepede, either between them, or 

 with the natural families. 



The plates which we have givea in the history of Icthyology, may 

 be consulted for their distribution. 



I cannot see that the attempts of this kind that have been recently 

 made in Germany, have been more fortunate. Thus, M. Goldfuss,by 

 making no other changes in the division of Linnaeus, than uniting 

 tlie jugulars with the thoracics, and the branchiosteges with the chon- 

 dropterygians, has deprived himself of all means of classing these 

 families in the order of their affinities. The cyclopteres and the 

 lophii can never be put, as he places them, between the lampreys and 

 the sharks ; nor can the trichiure be reasonably placed, as he had it, 

 with the eels, and very far from the lepidopus, which it resembles 

 almost in every respect ; the gnathobolus, which is a herring, can 

 never remain with the stromateus, which is almost a chetodon. 



The author himself was obliged to depart from his rule with regard 

 to the sword-fish, which he leaves near the scombres, amongst tliC 

 subbracchians, although assuredly it is an apode. 



M. Oken found it more easy to arrange his families, he gave to his 

 grand orders his fish fishes, his reptile fishes, his bird fishes, and 

 mammal fishes; only characters almost indeterminate, and never- 

 theless, from having made use of the position of the ventrals in his 



CO 2 



