194 UPPER CRETACEOUS-TELEOSTS 
Despite these different modes of life the two families share a common jaw structure 
and mode of functioning. This aspect together with a discussion on the status of the 
ascending process of the premaxilla has been considered by the author in a separate 
paper (Goody, 1968). 
The relationships and affinities of the enchodontoids have not, hitherto, been more 
than scantily covered. Woodward (1901 : 189) placed the family within the 
Isospondyli close to the Scopelidae, indicating that their nearest living relatives were 
the Omosudidae and the Alepisauridae. In the introduction to volume 4 of his 
“ Catalogue ’’ (1901), Woodward stated that, ‘““ The Enchodontidae represent a very 
abundant family which might furnish the ancestors of both the Isospondylous 
Scopelidae or the Acanthopterygian Berycidae”’. Regan (1911: 120) put the 
family in the Iniomi within the Isospondyl, corresponding roughly to Woodward’s 
(1901) designation, but related them closer to the stomiatoids. Jordan (1923 : 126) 
followed Regan in relating them to the stomiatoids. Gregory (1933 : 204) placed 
the family within the group Mesichthyes (intermediate teleosts), and pointed out the 
divergence of opinion between Woodward (1go1) and Regan (1911) as to their 
affinities, either scopeloid or stomiatoid respectively. Berg (1940 : 432) erected the 
new suborder Enchodontoidei within the Clupeiformes to contain the single family 
Enchodontidae, related to the stomiatoids. Bertin and Arambourg (1958 : 2268), 
realigned the family with the myctophiform fishes, putting them within the suborder 
Alepisauroidei. 
Previous opinion then, has been to associate the enchodontoids with either the 
stomiatoids or the myctophiforms, although general agreement has been reached in 
assuming the enchodontoids to be relatively primitive and close to the base of the 
teleost radiation. 
The stomiatoids are a pelagic or bathypelagic group of fishes of uncertain affinities. 
Beebe and Crane (1939) indicated that they were more closely related to the 
salmoniform fishes than to the clupeoids. This view has now been amply justified 
by Weitzman (1967), who has derived the stomiatoids from a stock close to the 
osmerids. Several features shown by the stomiatoids tend to nullify any pro- 
position that the enchodontoids are either ancestral or even related to the stomiatoids. 
Certain of these are as follows : 
1. In jaw structure there is a certain degree of similarity between the enchodon- 
toids and stomiatoids in that both possess a very strongly developed dentition. In 
the stomiatoids, however, the major tooth bearing bones are the premaxilla and 
maxilla, while the palato-pterygoid dentition is reduced or absent (Weitzman, 1967 : 
516, fig. 8). In the enchodontoids the palato-pterygoid dentition is strongly 
developed but that on the premaxilla and maxilla is reduced. 
2. The maxilla of the stomiatoids is the major component of the dermal upper 
jaw and supports supramaxillae (Weitzman, 1967 : 516, fig. 9). In enchodontoids 
the premaxilla is the major bone and the maxilla is variously reduced and never 
bears supramaxillae. 
3. There is considerable bone reduction in the stomiatoids, particularly in the 
neurocranium where the lateral prootic walls are lost in the anterior region of the 
