Classification of the Order Synentognathi. 329 



Tlie fishes of this order have often been considered to form 

 but a single family, Scombresocidae (Giiuth. Cat. Fish. vi. 

 p. 234; Bouleng. Camb. Nat. Hist. Fish. jd. 637). In 1878 

 Cope (Proc. Amer. Phil. Soc. xvii. p. 695) proposed to place 

 Belone in a separate family, the possession of a coronoid. 

 bone and of zygapophyses being said to distinguish it from 

 the Exocoetidpe.' In 1895 (Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus. xviii. p. 167) 

 Dr. G.ll put forward the following scheme : — 



Family ExoccETiD-aE. 



Synentognathi with the siipramaxillaries [maxillaries] only in contact 

 with the intermaxillaries [praeinaxillaiies], the mandible with a reduced 

 intradentary hone, the hypopharyngeals united in a broad triangular 

 body, the third pair of epipharyngeals much enlarged, those of the fourth 

 pair aborted or united with the third, and the vertebrte without zyga- 

 pophysoid processes. 



Subfamily Scomberesocix^. 



Exocoetids with both jaws more or less elongated and attenuated 

 forward, pectoral tius moderate, and the epipharyngeals of the third pair 

 separate. 



Subfamily ExoccEiiNiE. 



Exocoetids with both jaws rounded or simply angulated forward, 

 pectoral tins enlarged and adapted for susceutation of the body in the 

 air, and the epipharyngeals of the third pair separate. 



Subfamily Hemirhamphin^. 



Exocoetids with the upper jaw angulate and the lower produced into 

 an elongated beak, pectoral fins moderate or little enlarged, and the 

 epipharyngeals of the third pair closely united in a transverse plate. 



Family Esocid^* [Belonid je]. 



Synentognathi with the supramaxillaries united by suture with the 

 intermaxillaries, the mandible with an elongated intradentary bone, the 

 hypopharyngeals united in a narrow budy, the third pair of epipharyngeals 

 little enlarged, those of the fourth pair distinct from the third and from 

 each other and the vertebrae with distinct zygapophysoid processes. 



* There can be no question that Artedi and Linnaeus regarded the 

 pike, Esox luciiis, as the type of the genus Esox. Linnaeus, in the sixth 

 edition of the ' Systema Naturae,' included three species in the genus — 



1. luchis, 2. belcme, 3. acus; and in the ' Fauna Suecica ' two — 1. luciiis, 



2. belone. Artedi, in the ' Bibliotheca Ichthyologica ' (1738), also 

 placed the pike, Esox rostro plagiopluteo, as the first species of the genus 

 Esox, and as the first synonym gave Esox, Pliny. Thus, by the rule of 

 tautonymy, E. lucins is the type of Esox, and Kafinesque's restriction of 

 the name to E. belone may be ignored. The fact that in all probability 

 Artedi was mistaken in thinking that Pliny's Esox was the pike has no 

 importance in this connexion. 



' Ann, cfc Mag. N. Hist. Ser. 8. Vol. vii. 22 



