660 



SCIENCE. 



[N. S. Vol. XXI. No. 539. 



characteristic of this divisioB,' and this alone 

 will permit us to keep Anoplopoma apart as 

 the type of a distinct family, Anoplopomidse 

 (or Anoplopomatidse, if you will), since in 

 this genus the suborbital bone is ' prolonged 

 over the cheek towards the praeoperculum ' 

 (p. 693). 



Triglopsis is unquestionably a typical 

 Cottid and scarcely distinguishable generically 

 from the common Coitus or Oncocottus quad- 

 ricornis. 



If as to these (and a number of other 

 groups) we must agree to differ, it is gratify- 

 ing to find that such a self-reliant investigator 

 as Dr. Boulenger, who would rather differ than 

 not, has independently reached the same con- 

 clusions as American naturalists in many 

 cases, and has correspondingly abandoned the 

 views so long current in Europe. For ex- 

 ample, he has recognized the distinctions and 

 mutual relations of the families of Hemi- 

 branchii, Scleroparei, Pediculati and Plecto- 

 gnathi, or at least most of them, which were 

 so long denied by the Giintherian school. 

 There is, too, a notable agreement or approxi- 

 mation to agreement in very many other re- 

 spects. 



The recognition of the high rank of the 

 Discocephali is also a triumph of reason over 

 prejudice and leadership. Its 'type, Echeneis, 

 was declared by Dr. Giinther in ' The Intro- 

 duction ' (p. 460) to be closely allied to ' the 

 genus Elacate, from which it differs only by 

 the transformation of the spinous dorsal fin 

 into a sucking organ ' ! Gill, after a study 

 of the skeleton (1883) declared that Echeneis 

 ' differs in toto from Elacate ' and revived a 

 name given long before by Bleeker. Never- 

 theless, a man who gave some consideration 

 to osteological characters (F. A. Smitt), in his 

 'Scandinavian Fishes' (p. 89), thought the 

 'genus may still lay claim to a place among 

 the Scombridffi, though the family-diagnosis 

 can scarcely notice all such variations ' ! 

 Boulenger is willing to be influenced by the 

 characters and, therefore, remarks (p. 691) 

 that, ' in spite of a superficial external re- 

 semblance to the genus Elacate, the sucking- 

 fish bear certainly no affinity to that genus 



nor to other Scombriformes, as first observed 

 by Gill.' 



There is the usual statement (p. 593) in 

 ichthyological works, that the ' only European 

 representative of the family ' Siluridae is the 

 Silurus glanis. Over twenty-two centuries 

 ago, however, Aristotle described the habits of 

 a Grecian species differing much from those 

 of the Silurus glanis, and Agassiz and Gar- 

 man have recognized the old Glanis as a dis- 

 tinct species closely related to one of Asia 

 (S. asotiis) ; it is the Silurus (or Para- 

 siluriis) Aristotelis. 



The old ' Introduction ' purported (very mis- 

 takenly) to give the names of all genera sup- 

 posed to be valid and diagnoses of very many 

 of them. The new work merely gives the 

 names of most of the genera of each family 

 or only the ' principal genera.' None of the 

 genera are diagnosed as many were in the 

 introduction. 



Typographical or authorial slips are not 

 numerous. A few of them, however, might 

 perplex the reader and consequently may be 

 noticed here. The name Anostomus, properly 

 used for a genus of Characinids (p. 576), also 

 appears as a generic name under Mugilidae (p. 

 640) ; Agonostomus is the actual name of the 

 Mugiloid genus. Trichodontidse is a family 

 name of certain Perciformes (pp. 654, 633) % 

 the name appearing for fishes of the suborder 

 Jugulares (p. 704) is merely a slip for 

 Trichonotidse (p. 706). In the statement that 

 the family Lipogenyidae ' has lessened the 

 gap between the Lyomeri (Halosauridse) and 

 Heteromi (Notacanthidae) of Gill,' Lyomeri 

 (p. 622) is evidently a lapsus for Lyopomi. 

 Lyomeri (p. 622) is properly the name of 

 the group represented by Saccopharyngidae. 

 Gnathacanthus (p. 695) is a slip for Gnathana- 

 canthus, the latter meaning exactly the op- 

 posite of the former. The Connecticut in- 

 vestigator of the origin of the lateral fins 

 (James K. Thacher) is misnamed ' Thacker ' 

 (p. 245). 



IX. 



The differences between the new ichthyolog- 

 ical school of Britain and that of America 

 result chiefly from the different modes of ap- 

 proach to the subject. Dr. Boulenger had 



