CLASSIFICATION OF THE AMIOID AND 
LEPISOSTEOID FISHES. 
O. P. HAY. 
THE science of ichthyology has within recent years been 
greatly enriched by the publication of the volumes of Mr. A. S. 
Woodward’s Catalogue of the Fossil Fishes in the British 
Museum. This work is destined not only to give a great 
impetus to the study of fossil fishes, but also to have an impor- 
tant influence on the higher classification of the living forms. 
Many changes, based in part on the distinguished author’s own 
researches, in part on the investigations of others, have been 
made in the ichthyological system, so that we now get new and 
clearer views of many groups. The author’s conclusions, too, 
are so modestly set forth that others cannot afford to be 
dogmatic when they differ from him. 
A large portion of the third volume of Mr. Woodward’s 
work is devoted to the elucidation of those fishes which have 
for some time ‘been regarded as forming the groups called 
“ Amioidei ” and “ Lepidosteoidei.” These groups are rejected 
by Mr. Woodward and the genera are redistributed. Catopterus 
and its ally Dictyopyge are made a family of the Chondrostei, 
while Pholidophorus and a number of related genera are 
removed to the Isospondyli. With this disposition of these 
forms no one will probably find fault. 
The remaining materials are then divided into two suborders, 
the Protospondyli and the Aetheospondyli. The living repre- 
sentative of the former group is Amia; that of the latter is 
Lepisosteus. Mr. Woodward says (3, p. xxii): “It is equally 
impossible to justify the conceptions of the groups ‘ Lepidos- 
teoidei ’ and ‘ Amioidei,’ most of the extinct fishes which are 
commonly ascribed to the former being proved in the catalogue 
to be much more closely related to the latter.” 
It is the purpose of the present paper to consider the correct- 
ness of Mr. Woodward’s disposition of the fishes here referred to. 
