Jordan and Evermann. Fishes of North America. 22(57 



Concerning the relations of this family, Dr. Gill has the following 

 pertinent remarks : 



"The family of Scomberoides was constituted by Cuvier for certain forms 

 of known organization, among which were fishes evidently related to 

 Caranx, but which had free dorsal spines. In the absence of knowledge 

 of its structure, the genus Elacaie was approximated to such because it 

 also had free dorsal spines. Dr. Giinther conceived the idea of disin- 

 tegrating this family, because, inter alias, the typical Scomberoides (family 

 Scombridw) had more than 24 vertebral and others (family Carangidw) had 

 just 24. The assumption of Cuvier as to the relationship of Elacatc 

 was repeated, but inasmuch as it has 'more than 24 vertebra? ' (it has 

 25 = 12 -f- 13) it was severed from the free-spined Carangidcv and associated 

 with the Scombridw. Elacatc has an elongated body, flattish head, and a 

 colored longitudinal lateral baud; Eclieneis has also an elongated body, 

 flattened head, and a longitudinal lateral band; therefore Echencis was 

 considered to be next allied to Elacate and to belong to the same family. 

 The very numerous differences in structure between the two were entirely 

 ignored, and the reference of the Eclieneis to the Scombridce is simply due 

 to assumption piled on assumption. The collocation need not, therefore, 

 longer detain us. The possession by Eclieneis of the anterior oval cephalic 

 disk in place of a spiuous dorsal fin would alone necessitate the isolation 

 of the genus as a peculiar family. But that difference is associated with 

 almost innumerable other peculiarities of the skeleton and other parts, 

 and in a logical system it must be removed far from the Scombridce, and 

 probably be endowed with subordinal distinction. In all essential respects 

 it departs greatly from the type of structure manifested in the Scombridcv 

 and rather approximates but very distantly the Gobioidea and Blen- 

 nloidea. In those types we have in some a tendency to flattening of the 

 head, of anterior development of the dorsal fin, a simple basis cranii, etc. 

 Nevertheless, there is no close affinity nor even any tendency to the 

 extreme modification of the spinous dorsal exhibited by Eclieneis. In 

 view of all these facts Echcneis, with its subdivisions, may be regarded as 

 constituting not only a family but a suborder. * * * Who can con- 

 sistently object to the proposition to segregate the Echeneididcv as a sub- 

 order of teleocephaleous fishes ? Not those who consider that the develop- 

 ment of 3 or 4 inarticulate rays (or even less) in the front of the dorsal fin 

 is sufficient to ordinarily differentiate a given form from another with only 

 1 or 2 such. Certainly the difference between the constituents of a disk 

 and any rays or spines is much, greater than the mere development or 

 atrophy of articulations. Not those who consider that the manner of 

 depression of spines, whether directly over the following, or to the right 

 or left alternately, are of ordinal importance; for such differences again 

 are manifestly of less morphological significance than the factors of a suc- 

 torial disk. Nevertheless, there are doubtless many who will passively 

 resist the proposition because of a conservative spirit, and who will 

 vaguely recur to the development of the disk as being a ' teleological 

 modification/ and as if it were not an actual fact and a development cor- 

 related with radical modifications of all parts of the skeleton at least. 

 But whatever may be the closest relations of Echencis, or the systematic 



