Reviews—Prof. A. K. von Zittel’s Palichthyology. 229 
rays which appear quite indeterminable, and probably do not belong 
even to the Siluroid family. 
Following the Siluride are the three typically-Cretaceous families 
of ‘‘Saurocephalide” (Saurodontide of Cope), Hoplopleuride, and 
Stratodontide. These, however, can only be regarded as pro- 
visionally defined, and the precise relationships even of the best- 
known genera are at present very doubtful. Portheus, Ichthyodectes, 
and Saurocephalus are typical representatives of the Saurocephalide : 
but, as Cope has already recognized,’ it is impossible to place 
Protosphyrena with these. The stated definition of the Hoplopleuride 
contradicts one point (“ Wirbelsiule verknochert”’) in the diagnosis 
of the “subclass Teleostei” on p. 252; and this contradiction is 
introduced to admit of the association of the early Mesozoic genera, 
Belonorhynchus and Saurichthys, with Dercetis and its allies of the 
Chalk. Such an association appears to the present writer most 
unnatural and unjustifiable ; for it must be remembered that in the 
dorsal and anal fins of Belonorhynchus the interspinous bones are 
very much fewer in number than the dermal rays*—a character 
unknown in any fishes higher than Crossopterygians and Acipen- 
seroids—while the maxilla of Saurichthys has lately proved to exhibit 
a palatal extension such as has hitherto been met with only in the 
Crossopterygian Polypterus.2 The Neocomian Saurorhamphus, it is 
true, is said to have possessed a persistent notochord, but more 
information is required concerning this fish. Leptotrachelus is 
probably a synonym of Dercetis, or at least is not separated by the 
usual diagnosis;* and in whatever family Hurypholis is placed, 
Enchodus must follow. Hurygnathus (Davis) is a synonym of the 
latter,° and the recent discovery of complete skulls has proved the 
stout bones so long described as premaxille (and thus named by 
Dr. v. Zittel) to be truly the palatine elements.° The amended 
“‘ Hypsodon” is identical with Pachyrhizodus;7 and next to Cimo- 
lichthys we might add Pomognathus,? removing it from p. 279. 
The Hsocide have few extinct representatives, so far as known, 
though there is much in their anatomy to suggest close alliance 
with some of the earlier Physostomi. The Notopteridz and Chiro- 
centridz also have no fossil representatives of importance ; but the 
enumeration of the succeeding Clupeide occupies nearly nine pages. 
Here Dr. v. Zittel places the typically Jurassic T’hrissops and Leptolepis, 
adopting a subfamily Thrissopina, and then three others—the Clupeina, 
Chanina, and Hlopina. A fine new figure of the head, opercular 
apparatus, and pectoral arch of Leptolepis is given; and there is 
some interesting information concerning the mandible both of this 
genus and of Thrissops. W.von der Marck’s wide separation of 
Sardinioides from Osmeroides is accepted; Scombroclupea follows 
1 Bull. U.S. Geol. Surv. Territ. vol. ii. (1887), pp. 821-823. 
W. Deecke, Paleontogr. vol. xxxv. (1889), p. 129. 
Ann. and Mag. Nat. Hist. [6], vol. ii. 1889, p. 302. 
Proc. Geol. Assoc. vol. x. p. 319. 
Grou. Mae. [3], Vol. V. 1888, p. 472. 
Proc. Geol. Assoc. vol, x. p. 315, pl. i. figs. 5, 6. 
Ibid. p. 811. - 8 Ibid. p. 817. 
AIA a rk wD 
