66 
RECORDS OE THE AUSTRALIAN MUSEUM. 
Australian coast, and, whore so little is known of them, it is 
advisable that no opportunity should be lost of recording any 
fresh facts in connection with their distribution and mode of 
life. 
The genus Schedophilus was originally placed by Gunther among 
the Coryphcenina , at that time considered to be a Group of the 
Scombridce , but subsequently accorded family rank. The dis- 
covery, however, off the Pacific coast of North America of two 
closely allied forms, induced Professors Jordan and Gilbert to 
remove these fishes, respectively known as Icosteus enigmaticus 
and Icichthys lockingtoni to a separate family, for which they 
proposed the name Icosteidce , and in which was included the 
Bathymeter of Cope, a genus which differs in a much greater 
degree from the typical Icosteus than does Icosteus from a typical 
Schedophilus, which latter genus is apparently omitted entirely 
from the family ; the words of those authors, after diagnosing 
the Icosteidce, being : “ This group, as at present constituted, is 
composed of three very diverse genera, each of a single species, 
inhabiting the deeper waters of the North Pacific. It is probably 
most nearly related to the Malacanthidce , from which it is dis- 
tinguished by the presence of pyloric coeca, and by the non-labrid 
dentition.”* 
The formation of a new family for these fishes, and the con- 
sequent disruption of his Coryphcenidce, does not meet with Dr. 
Gunther’s approval, and he further holds that the splitting up of 
Cocco’s genus is distinctly untenable; he remarks : “I fail to find 
in the description (of S. lockingtoni ) characters which would warrant 
a generic separation from Schedophilus , or the creation of a distinct 
family Icosteidce .” f With the latter part of this opinion we are 
entirely in accord, for we cannot consider that such characters as 
the dentition and the absence of pseudobranchue, however useful 
in separating genera, can with propriety be applied to the differ- 
entiation of families. 
With reference to the generic distinctions pointed out by 
Lockington, Jordan, and Gilbert, we cannot, however, so readily 
give in our adherence to Dr. Gunther’s views ; such characters as 
the presence or absence of scales, of groups of epidermal spines, 
and of an airbladderj being of sufficient importance to make us 
hesitate before declining to accept the genera Icosteus and lcicithys 
proposed by the American ichthyologists. In this communication 
we shall, however, include all the known species under the 
common term Schedophilus , using the other names as signifying 
• 4 
* Synopsis, p. 619. 
f Voy. Challenger, xxii. p. 46. 
JThis is apparently of less importance, and is of course well known in 
the true Mackerels. 
