Gill.) 664 [July 18, 
changing social growths is best to be found in the philosophy of the indi- 
vidual treatment of crime-cause, and its appropriate remedies. 
That such a conclusion will be reached, as penology is studied, is most 
likely. If so, it will be the conviction of the judgment which comes from 
the demonstration of the principles which, since 1790, in this city have 
been taught as the science of convict punishment. This advance will be 
slow. It must be remembered that Beccaria in his essay on ‘‘ Crimes and 
Punishment”’ in 1764; Filangieri in his ‘‘ Science of Legislation ’’ in 1780 
and Montesquieu in his ‘Spirit of the Laws,’’ 1748, were among the first 
to invite attention to penal jurisprudence. A century elapsed before 
practical advantages testified to the effect produced from this discussion of 
the subject. The Pennsylvania prison system rests its claim for recogni- 
tion and adoption on the suggestions of philosophy, and the teaching of 
experience, confirmed by half a century of trial. It must teach, and wait. 
| Notes on the Stromateida. By Theodore Gill. 
(Read before the American Philosophical Soctety, July 18th, 1884.) 
The grave errors into which Dr. Giinther seems to have fallen in the 
treatment of certain forms of this family furnish my excuse for the pres- 
ent communication. Dr. Giinther has reiterated, without change, opin- 
| ions enunciated twenty years ago, and he still separates widely forms of 
I] one of the subfamilies of this family, dispersing representatives thereof 
| among four of his ‘“families’’ and associating them in several cases with 
} 
forms with which they have no aflinity. Following Dr. Giinther in the 
first instance Dr. Day has also misunderstood one of the types in question, 
and Dr. Liitken has likewise been deceived as to the relationships of the 
same form. 
The family, as here understood, is co-equal with the Stromateida of Dr. 
tiinther, with the addition of several types widely scattered by that gen- 
tleman. It embraces in fact, (1) the Stromateide recognized as such by 
Dr. Giinther, (2) the genus Pammelus of his Carangida, (3) the species 
genes anomalus of his Nomeida, and (4) the genus Schedophilus of his Cory- 
phanide. There are two quite distinct types in the group thus constituted, 
(1) one represented by Stromateus and its allies, and (2) the other by 
Oentrolophus and relatives. These are distinguished by differences in 
the development of the vertebra, the former having 14-15 abdominal and 
17-21 caudal vertebree, and the latter 11 abdominal and 14 caudal verte- 
| bre ; these differences are supplemented by variations in the degree of 
complexity of the peculiar appendages representing and homologous with 
the gill-rakers of ordinary fishes, developed from the last branchial arch, 
and extending into the cesophagus. It is quite possible, therefore, that 
the two types, now retained as sub-families under the old names Stroma- 
