296 CLASSIFICATION OF FISHES. 



different family^ close to the gar-fish {Rampliistoma* 

 Raf.). That they have an intimate relation to both of 

 these groups, is very obvious ; but it is not so easy to de- 

 termine to which they naturally belong. If we regarded 

 their sharp carinated body^ their small obliquely cleft 

 mouth, the peculiar form of the maxillaries^ the small- 

 ness or total absence of the teeth, and even their large 

 deciduous scales, we should at once place them among 

 the herrings ; while_, if we attach more importance to 

 the backward position of the dorsal fin^ and the singular 

 carinated lateral line placed close to and on each side 

 of the belly, we should adopt Cuvier's idea of arranging 

 them close to Hemiramiilius , — more especially as the pre- 

 ponderance of characters are certainly in favour of these 

 fishes belonging to Esocincs, but at that extreme point 

 where they pass into the herrings. Some very import- 

 ant analogies, also, will result from this arrangement^ 

 which, as it was made by Cuvier, becomes totally unin- 

 fluenced by such considerations. As Chirocentrus was 

 the last type among the herrings, so does Exocetus be- 

 come the first among the pikes : from the absence of 

 intermediate or graduating forms^ the connection is not 

 very obvious ; and yet, when we look to the profile of 

 their heads, the depression of the crown, the sub- vertical 

 direction of the mouth, the sharpness of their belly, 

 and the position of their dorsal, anal, and ventral fins, 

 we see a manifest relation between them ; although in 

 one the teeth are highly developed, while in the othei 

 they are almost or altogether wanting. 



(250.) TheEjcoceti, or flying fish (JSo^oce^'ofe??* Linn., 



fig. 62.), however, are chiefly remarkable for the enormous 



development of their pectoral fins, by the aid of which they 



are sustained in the air during a short time — when they 



have more the appearance of birds than of fish ; so that if 



* Esojc belone Linn. The impropriety of calling this group by such a 

 name as belone, need not be pointed out. M. Cuvier's names are in 

 gejieral so well chosen, and so classically constructed, that we always feel 

 repugnance in proposing to substitute others for the very few which are 

 fault\'. In the present case, however, as in that of Laurida, M. Cuvier's 

 names have not even the claim of priority, for Ramphistoma was proposed 

 seven years before that of Belone. 



