ON THE GENERAL MORPHOLOGY OF THE MYXINOID FISHES. Th 
which it supports, and is soon gradually converted into typical hard cartilage. 
Posteriorly it becomes first of all more rounded, and then opposite the ninth nasal ring 
it consists again of soft cartilage, of which the remainder is formed. It now flattens out 
from side to side and becomes narrow from above downwards, and its expanded posterior 
free extremity lies underneath the junction of the nasal tube with the nasal capsule— 
that is, between the latter and the palatine commissure, with which commissure it is 
connected by stout ligaments. It may even project slightly behind the commissure, as 
figured by PaRKER. 
The cartilage of the fourth tentacle (4) is quite independent; but, according to 
J. Mtuter in Bdellostoma, it is connected by ligament with the basal plate, and 
according to AYERS and Jackson with the base of the third tentacle also. It consists 
of a slightly curved and somewhat vertical rod of soft cartilage, situated entirely in 
the curiously shaped tentacle, and rather tilted towards the middle line. To this 
part is fused, at somewhere about the middle of its length, a stout rod which passes 
within the contour of the body outwards, upwards, and backwards on the surface of the 
muscles, where it terminates. The latter internal rod consists largely of hard cartilage. 
According to all published accounts, the shape of this tentacular cartilage of Myaxine 
is different from the corresponding one in Bdellostoma, where it forms an irregular 
plate. I have, however, seen indications of a similar shape in some specimens of 
Myzxine. 
PARKER went seriously wrong on the tentacular skeleton of Myaine. He figures all 
the tentacular cartilages as independent, and altogether missed the lateral labials. It is 
difficult to understand how so wonderfully skilled a dissector as ParRKER could have 
made these mistakes, especially as the cartilages are actually shown in his sections 
(which, however, he entirely misinterprets), and as they are by no means difficult to 
dissect. His description of Bdellustoma is much happier, although not quite correct, 
and he is also inaccurate in figuring and describing the subnasal bar of Myxine as 
consisting entirely of hard cartilage. NEUMAYER figures and describes a fusion between 
the posterior end of the subnasal bar and the anterior end of the hypophysial plate, but 
I find no traces whatever of this either in the 6°5 cm. or in the 10 cm. Hag. Apart 
from this, his description of the tentacular apparatus, as far as it goes, agrees exactly with 
mine. P. FURBRINGER inaccurately describes the lateral labial of Myxine as a connective 
tissue connection, but his figure and description of the tentacular apparatus (the skeleton 
not directly concerning him) is clearly inspired by J. MUxuer’s. Howes’ account of 
Bdellostoma is also wrong on practically all points, as pointed out by Potuarp, whose 
description of Myxine (op cit.) was the first to exhibit any degree of accuracy. 
H. Tae Basa Puatr. (Fig. 10. Also figs. 1 and 2.) 
? 
The base of the cranial skeleton is formed by the stout ‘‘ beam” underneath the 
gut, called by J. MUtier the “tongue bone” and referred to by Howes as the 
