76 
PACIFIC SCIENCE, VoL XIII, January 1959 
Giltay (1934) demonstrated the incorrectness 
of this allocation. Infer alia, Schindleria differs 
from all of the Beloniformes in the low num- 
ber of branchiostegal rays, the absence of 
fused pharyngeals, and the one-to-one rela- 
tionship between dorsal or anal fin rays 
and vertebrae. 
A rather better case could be made for 
placing Schindleria in the Syngnathiformes or 
Gasterosteiformes. However, the Syngnathi- 
formes are characterized by having the first 3 
to 6 vertebrae immovably united. The lack of 
a tubular snout, of external bony plates, and 
of a soft dorsal fin with closely spaced rays 
argues against placing Schindleria in either of 
these orders. 
Turning from negative to positive indica- 
tions of relationships, there appears to be only 
one character in Schindleria which provides 
any clues. This is, as already noted by Giltay 
(1934), the one-to-one relationship between 
the dorsal or anal fin rays and the vertebrae. 
It appears that this characteristic is limited to 
the Perciformes, being found there in the 
trachinoid, ammodytoid, blennioid, and many 
of the gobioid fishes. However, the basal 
perciform stock has, like other fishes, two or 
three soft dorsal and anal rays (with their 
interneurals and interhaemals) per vertebra. 
Just why certain perciform groups should 
have a one-to-one relationship between these 
features remains unknown. That it is a poly- 
phyletic development is shown by the gobioid 
fishes, where this relationship seems to have 
developed within the group itself. At least, 
Ptereleotris has the usual two or three inter- 
neurals per vertebrae whereas most of the 
other gobioids have only one (Gosline, 1955: 
166). If the one-to-one relationship has oc- 
curred several times within the perciform 
fishes, could it not also occur within other 
orders.^ The best available answer to this 
question seems to be that it apparently has 
not done so. 
To sum up regarding the ordinal position 
of Schindleria, the genus seems to rest most 
easily (or rather least uneasily) among the 
Perciformes. There is nothing to really in- 
validate such a position and there is the 
one-to-one fin ray to vertebra relationship to 
recommend it. Where Schindleria belongs 
among the Perciformes is obscure. The best 
that can be done is to place Schindleria in the 
neighborhood of the blennioid fishes. 
The reason for raising Schindleria to sub- 
ordinal rank (rather than placing it in the 
Blennioidei as Giltay, 1934, has done) lies in 
the rodlike terminal section of the spinal 
column. There seems to be nothing like it 
elsewhere in fishes. The author has looked 
through the literature on both adult and larval 
fishes without finding anything similar. He 
has discussed this precaudal rod with E. A. 
Ahlstrom, A. F. Bruun, and C. L. Hubbs, and 
wishes to thank them for their help on this 
matter; nevertheless, nothing resembling this 
rod has come to light. In the great majority of 
modern fishes the notochord is replaced by 
vertebrae. However, when this occurs the 
vertebral replacement runs all the way back to 
the caudal skeleton. The uniqueness of 
Schindleria lies in the fact that vertebral de- 
velopment stops short some distance before 
the caudal skeleton. 
There is one other feature of Schindleria 
that this author has never encountered else- 
where in fishes or in the literature (although 
this may simply indicate a gap in the author’s 
knowledge, especially in regard to larval 
fishes). In Schindleria the hyoid apparatus 
(Fig. 6) articulates with the upper head of the 
hyomandibular. In all the fishes the author 
knows, the hyoid apparatus articulates by 
means of the interhyal at the lower extremity 
of the hyomandibular. 
REFERENCES 
Bruun, A. F. 1940. A Study of a Collection of 
the Fish Schindleria South Pacific Waters. 
Dana Report 21. 12 pp., 8 figs. 
Giltay, L. 1934. Notes ichthyologiques. VIII. 
Les larves de Schindler sont-elles des Hemir- 
hamphidae? Mus. Roy. d’Hist. Nat. de 
Belgique, Bui. 10, no. 13. 10 pp., 4 figs. 
