Gobioidei, Discocephali, and Tzniosomi 681 
its living congeners, as might be expected if the smallness of 
the adhesive disk is taken into account.” 
Concerning the relations of the Discocephali 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. 
Dr. Ginther conceived the idea of disintegrating this family 
because, inter alias, the typical Scomberoides (family Scombride) 
have more than 24 vertebre and others (family Carangide) 
had just 24. The assumption of Cuvier as to the relationship of 
Elacate (Rachycentron) was repeated, but inasmuch as it had ‘more 
than 24 vertebre’ (it had 25 =12+13) it was severed from 
the free-spined Carangide and associated with the Scombride. 
Elacate has an elongated body, flattened head, and a longi- 
tudinal lateral band; therefore Echeneis 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 Echeneis to the Scom- 
bride is simply due to assumption piled on assumption. The 
collocation need not, therefore, longer detain us. The posses- 
sion by Echenets of the anterior oval cephalic disk in place of a 
spinous 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 Scombride, and probably be endowed with sub- 
ordinal distinction. In all essential respects it departs greatly 
from the type of structure manifested in the Scombride and 
rather approximates—but very distantly—the Gobroidea and 
Blennioidea. 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 tendency to the extreme modification of the 
spinous dorsal exhibited by Echeneis. In view of all these facts 
Echeneis, with its subdivisions, may be regarded as constitu- 
ting not only a family but a suborder. . .. Who can consistently 
object to the proposition to segregate the Echeneidid@ as a sub- 
order of teleocephalous fishes? Not those who consider that 
