
610 REVIEWS. 
In this classification of fishes Prof. Huxley has simply followed the 
groups of Müller, given twenty-three years ago, but has lowered the rank 
of the groups from subclasses, as they were considered by Müller, to 
rde 
of tank mar be ie The — are clad cee in many 
f 
type that it must be considered as representing a distinct subclass, rers 
the embryology of the lower Marsipobranchiates shall prove it to be 
lowest order of that subclass. The Téleostei are the most fish-like em 
fishes, agreeing more nearly with the Ganoidei than with the other 
roups. Are these six groups of equal value? and if so do they rank as 
If the same considerations used to pina the orders among Mam- 
mals, Reptiles, or Amphibians be applied to the fishes, will not the sec- 
ondary divisions of the groups Teleostei, Fiasmovranchit "a and 
On 
we keep as a distinct subclass, subject to ege on farther knowledge 
of the embryology of the Marsipobranchiate 
Our views of the higher groups might be secans thus:— 
berrant. Aberrant. 
(Mammalian and Avian.) (Reptilian and Amphibian.) 
ELASMOBRANCHIL . Subclass GANOIDEI. 
Degradational. 
Subclass MARSIPOBRANCHII. 
Embryonic. 
Subclass PHARYNGOBRANCHII. 
We confess l h disappointed in that part of the work which 
relates to the Mollusca. Though the general facts and special details of 
aee Hey stated, no notice is taken of the plan or arche- 



