CITIM.^.ROTD FISHES AND THEIR DEVELOPMENT. 



of citations as to their ])hyletic position, every nivestigator will admit that Chim- 

 an'oids have been hut httle studied — surprisingly httle studied, if we consider the 

 morjihological problems which the}- have trenched upon And in this regard we 

 mav safelv conclude that the obstacle in the way of the investigator has often 

 been a simple one — lack of material for research. For, until recently, good material 

 of Chimjera was relatively rare. As a deep-water form, it was taken only by special 

 hshermen in special localities, and even then, since it was not a food-fish, it found its 

 way rarelv to a market and still more rareh' to a laboratory. This, then, has been 

 an obvious reason why embryological material was not early described. It ma\' 

 finally be mentioned that fossil Chimseroids, so important to the general discussion, 

 are rare, and, with very few exceptions, fragmentary. 



Recent Chimjeroids are included in 4 genera and about 25 species. An idea of 

 their distribution and size may be had by reference to the following table : 



Table A.— A'li/ds, Localities, and Approximalf Sizes of Recent Cliimirroids. 



* By any remote possibility could this have been Callorhynchus cenlrina, which Gronow described from a speci- 

 men which he saw " in museo cl. Gaubii, Lugd. Batav. "? (Syst., ed. Gray, 1854, pp. 15-16. ) His description suggests 

 Harriotta rather than Rhinochimsera, since "habitat in Oceano Americano." It is hardly conceivable, however, 

 that Gronow should have happened across this rare form, and from the general vagueness of the description and 

 in view of the absence of the type specimen the name Callorhynchus eentrina should be cast out of the systematic list. 



