FOSSIL AND RECENT 5 



The starting point of the work was taken from Woodward (1901), who recognized 

 the two families Elopidae and Albulidae. Woodward (1901) used a key to divide 

 the Elopidae into two assemblages, later termed the ' elopine ' and ' spaniodontine ' 

 groups by Dunkle (1940). This basic division of the elopids was based on the 

 condition of the parietals, medially united in the ' elopines ' and separated by the 

 supraoccipital in the ' spaniodontines '. During the course of this revision it became 

 apparent that many of the ' spaniodontine ' genera together with two from the 

 ' elopine ' group represent an assemblage distinct from the Elopiformes. These 

 genera (Notelops, Rhacolepis, Pachyrhizodus, Thrissopater, Esocelops and possibly 

 Spaniodon and Thrissopteroides) differ from elopiform fishes in many important 

 details of the snout, the otic region of the neurocranium, the jaws, the infraorbital 

 series, the vertebral column and caudal skeleton, which show that these genera are 

 more correctly placed with the euteleostean fishes. They will be dealt with in a 

 later publication. 



Of the genera included by Woodward in the family Albulidae only Albula and 

 Istieus are retained here. Chanoides, Chanos, Prochanos and probably Ancylostylos 

 are all interrelated and their affinities lie with the Gonorynchiformes. Ananogmius 

 White & Moy-Thomas (now. subst. for Anogmius Cope, 1877) shows many cranial 

 and caudal features indicating that it is a member of the osteoglossomorph family 

 Plethodontidae (for features of the plethodonts see Bardack 1965 and Patterson 

 1967c). 



It has been impossible to examine at first hand all genera which have at one time 

 or another been referred to the Elopiformes. Where relevant, comments are in- 

 cluded on these unexamined forms, but the many records of isolated otoliths and 

 scales have been omitted because of their debatable value in a work of this nature. 



Greenwood et al. (1966), writing from a neontological point of view, proposed a 

 classification for the Elopiformes which is substantiated here. The Elopiformes 

 are separable into two rather different suborders, the Elopoidei Jordan (1923) and 

 the Albuloidei Greenwood et al. (1966). Following a general discussion of the order, 

 the suborders are given separate consideration. 



II. MATERIALS AND METHODS 



Nearly all material used in the preparation of this work is in the British Museum 

 (Natural History) and those specimens are referred to by the prefix B.M.N.H. A few 

 specimens were borrowed from the Royal Scottish Museum, Edinburgh, and are 

 prefixed by R.S.M. The prefix M.H.N. P. denotes specimens in the Museum 

 National d'Histoire Naturelle, Paris. 



My thanks are due to Professor T. Abe of Tokyo University for the donation of 

 three specimens of Pterothrissus gissu, one specimen of Elops hawaiensis and one of 

 Megalops cyprinoides. 



Techniques used in the preparation of fossil and Recent material were those used 

 by Goody (1969b). The clearing of specimens prior to staining with ' alizarin S ' 

 was done using the enzyme-clearing technique described by Taylor (1967). 



