326 



SCIENCE. 



for the Centrarchines and Lepomines, and that these are 

 diagnosed by the least important and most fallacious 

 characters, and that thereby the species are thrown into 

 almost inexplicable confusion, some idea may be formed 

 of the unreliability of the work. 



The general anatomical portion of the work is, on the 

 whole, really a tolerably good resume of facts respect- 

 ing the structure and organization of fishes, for the 

 author has wisely followed Gegenbaur, Huxley and 

 Parker without sufficient deviation to fall into much 

 error. One great objection to it, however, is the undue 

 prominence given to the peculiarities of the teleostean 

 types and the exhibition of them in such a manner as to 

 prevent the reader's conception of the range of variation 

 in the forms treated of, and especially as to the taxono- 

 mic value of such variations. In this connection too, we 

 may notice the reproduction of seme rather strange 

 views. Thus, it is said that " the numbers of the dorsal 

 and anal rays give good specific, generic, or even family 

 characters," except when greatly increased, while "the 

 taxinomic [taxonomic] value of this character becomes 

 uncertain. The numbers of the pectoral and caudal rays 

 are rarely of any account " (p. 44). The last remark 

 embodies a striking illustration of the length to which 

 Dr. Giinther's neglect carries him in contempt of the facts. 

 Far from the number of the completely developed caudal 

 rays being of no account, there are rarely deviations in 

 the number in related forms, and when such prevail they 

 generally accompany other decided modifications of 

 structure and are available for major diagnostic pur- 

 poses, as Bleeker has observed. Again, it is claimed 

 of the pectoral limb that the structure of that of Cera- 

 todus "evidently" represents one of its first and lowest 

 conditions " (p. 74). So far is this from being " evident " 

 that it is difficult to understand how any one familiar 

 with the stucture and development of the limb in the 

 Selachians and related types, and conversant with the 

 logic of science could entertain for one moment such an 

 opinion and, on the contrary, not look upon the Cerato- 

 dontoid limb as an extreme deviation from the primitive 

 type. But the very climax of absurdity and unscien- 

 tific comparison is exemplified in the case of Ceratodus 

 by the homologisalion of the basal segment of the axis 

 of the pectoral fin (not that which supports it) with the 

 basal cartilage of the Sturgeon, and which itself is the 

 source of several other errors (pp. 74, 76). A comparison 

 of the pectoral limbs of Ceratodus and Polyptcrus would 

 be sufficient to prevent any scientific naturalist from 

 making such a blunder. We need not dwell further on 

 such defects but in connection with the systematic 

 portion, we cannot omit to notice that Dr. Giinther 

 recognizes that in the Chondropterygians there are no 

 bones representing the membrane bones of the skull of 

 the Ganoid and higher fishes ; that at the most there are 

 simply "rudimentary maxillary elements " (p. 69); that 

 the scapular arch " is formed by a single coracoid carti- 

 lage " (p. 69) ; that " the same type of branchial organs 

 [as in the Cyclostomes] persists in Chondropterygians, 

 which possess five, rarely six or seven, flattened pouches 

 with transversely plaited walls," each pouch opening 

 " outwards, and by an aperture into the pharynx, without 

 intervening ducts" (p. 137) ; and that an " air bladder 

 is absent but occurs in ail Ganoids," etc. (p. 141), and 

 that the generative organs are very peculiar (p. 166). 

 Yet in spite of all these differences, in face of the recog- 

 nized similarity between the teleosteoid Ganoids 

 (Amia, &c.) and certain Physostomes, and in ignorance 

 of the evanescence of the characters designed to differ- 

 entiate the Teleosts, he adheres to the combination of the 

 Ganoids with the Chondropterygians in one sub-class — the 

 Palasichthyes. It is indeed a "singular concurrence" 

 of characters (p. 312)— butnot of important ones — that is 

 employed to segregate this group, for not one is common 

 to all the members included in it, and at the same time 

 exclusive of other types. A knowledge of the anatomi- 



cal labors of recent biologists would have instructed 

 him as to this fact. The " Sub-class Palaeichthyes " is 

 indeed, as has been said by a recent well qualified judge, 

 "a triumph of systematic gaucherie." The group in 

 fact is the outcome of a confusion of ideas respecting 

 generalized characters and extravagant valuation of cer- 

 tain facts entitled to consideration but by no means to 

 anything like the extent admitted. 



Quite as inscrutable as his Morphology is Dr. 

 Giinther's Physiology. As we turn the pages of the 

 Introduction we come across strange assertions respect- 

 ing the functions connected with structural peculiarities. 

 Several of these may be taken as examples. 



The power of ejecting from the mouth drops of water 

 to seme distance, and with such force as to dislodge in- 

 sects and precipitate them into the water, has been attrib- 

 uted to more than one Javanese fish, but whether the 

 real shooter was a Chelmo, a Toxotes, or an Epzbulus, or 

 each one, (or even whether any actually had such power), 

 seems to have become doubtful. Skepticism as to any 

 case might have been legitimate, but Dr. Giinther un- 

 qualifiedly asserts that as to Chelmo " this statement is 

 erroneous," and that the feat " is practised by another 

 fish of this family {Toxotes). The long slender bill of 

 Chelmo (which is a true salt-water fish) rather enables 

 it to draw from holes and crevices animals which other- 

 wise could not be reached by it " (p. 399). Toxotes has 

 an unusually deeply cleft mouth, and one less fitted to 

 perform such a feat as that in question could scarcely be 

 found. The inaptness of the structure to the alleged 

 function might well evoke skepticism in anyone, and this 

 being once excited, the literature respecting the several 

 fishes which have been named ejaculators will demon- 

 strate that (1) there is no observational basis for the at- 

 tribution of blowing drops of water to the Toxotes, and 

 (2) there have been observations (by Hommel, Rein- 

 wardt and Mitchell), of a certain kind, of ejaculatory 

 feats by Chelmo. In fact, if it is conceded that the feat 

 is performed by a fish, in the sentences repeated from 

 Dr. Giinther, there are concentrated seven distinct er- 

 rors : (1) denial in spite of evidence, (2) affirmation with- 

 out sufficient basis, (3) denial in face of (comparative) 

 adaptation of structure to function, (4) credulity in spite 

 of inaptness of structure to function, (5) gratuitous as- 

 sumption of a function- — " to draw from holes and crevices 

 animals which could not otherwise be reached by it," (6) 

 the assumption, by implication, that the Archer was not 

 a salt-water type, although the first observer (Hommel) 

 especially stated that it was a sea-fish, and (7) erroneous 

 taxonomy in the association of Toxotes in the same fam- 

 ily with Chelmo. Almost all possible kinds of errors 

 have thus culminated in this single case. 



An instance of another gratuitous assumption respect- 

 ing a function, refers to a Sciaenoid fish. 



The genus " Collichthys Giinther" (previously named 

 Scicenoides by Blyth) is distinguished by a " great devel- 

 opment of the muciferous system on the head and the 

 small eye," and this characteristic " leads one [and but 

 one — Dr. Giinther alone] to suppose that these fishes live 

 in muddy water near the mouths of large rivers " (p. 430). 

 What teleological relation there is between muciferous 

 channels and small eyes and the muddy water of large 

 (or any kind of) rivers, Dr. Giinther has not vouchsafed 

 to inform us. That such characteristics do not usually 

 indicate the conditions suggested, is admitted by Dr. 

 Giinther himself, for he has recognized that " the muci- 

 ferous system of many deep-sea fishes is developed in an 

 extraordinary degree " (p. 300), and that a large portion 

 of the deep-sea forms are characterized by small eyes 

 (pp. 300-301). The fact is that instead of the inference 

 in question being the outcome of a consideration of the 

 structure indicated, it is the result of data concerning the 

 habitat of one species of the genus and the desire to con- 

 nect the structure with some function, however irrele- 

 vant. It is recorded in the " Catalogue of the Acanthop- 



