25 
wliicli have, as we would hope, only proved without exhaust- 
ing the fertility of the subject. 
The ichthyology of Cuvier is of no great value, at least so 
far as its general method is concerned, nor was its supremacy 
of long duration. Twenly-seven years its influence extended 
(1817-1844*) and then it fell as in a day. It may justly 
rank as an improvement upon what went before, but like too 
many artificial and facile systems it impeded further advance 
long before it was superseded. The best proof of its want 
of sure physiological foundation lies in the unnatural divi- 
sions and alliances which it made. For our purpose it is 
only necessary to remark that the order Granoidei was broken 
up into two widely separated sections. The Sturgeons and 
Polyodons went among the Chondropterygian or Cartilaginous 
Fishes ; Lepidostetis and Polypterus ranked side by side with 
the Salmons and Herrings among the Malacopterygii Abdo- 
minales. Had Calamoichthys been known to Cuvier it would 
have gone among the Eels as one of the Malacopterygii 
Apodes. 
This unfortunate separation of a singularly homogeneous 
group is the more remarkable that Cuvier had already noted 
the external points of resemblance between the fossil Gfanoid 
PalcBoniscus of the Zechstein, and both the groups into which 
he divided its living allies. His decision was, that having 
such striking resemblances to both^ it could belong to neither.f 
It was in some respects a step forward when Agassiz 
announced his views on the method of classifying fossil 
fishes. He rescued the Ganoid order as a whole, placing the 
cartilaginous Sturgeons side by side with the osseous Foly- 
])terus and Lepidosteus. But the grounds on which this was 
done were most unsatisfactory. It is perhaps almost need- 
* The date of the schame as published in the Regne Animal. It was, how- 
ever, anticipated by a sketch published iu 1815 in the Memoircs du Museum, vol. i. 
+ Ossemens Foasiles, 
