4 6 
ERIK A : SON STENSIO 
are, as far as one could judge from the facts then known, distinct from Undina only 
in certain less important characters. His clear and concise definitions of the different 
genera have made it possible to remove many of the earlier difficulties in the deter¬ 
mination of the genera, and his opinions have been adopted by the majority of later 
investigators, such as, for instance, Alessandri (1910), Eastman (1907), Koken (1911) 
and Schlosser (1918). In a paper published in 1900 Reis (p. 191) however, defends his 
old point of view with regard to the genera Coelacanthus and Rhabdoderma and seems 
to have arrived at about the same view as Newberry and Lutken as to the mutual 
relations of the various genera. «Es ist kein Zweifel,» he says, «dafi, wenn man die Gattung 
Macropoma aufrecht erhalt, man auch das gleichebei Rhabdoderma etc. tun mufi; der Syste- 
matiker der Zukunft wird wahrscheinlich, um die Verhaltnisse richtig auszudriicken, nur 
eine Gattung gelten lassen und die ubrigen Gruppen als Untergattungen anreihen.» 
In 1907 Woodward established the genus Mawsonia (1907 a, pp. i 3 4 —137) and the 
same year Eastman (1907, pp. 259—26 4 ) described, under the name of Palaeophichtlvys, 
an eel-shaped fish which, on very weak grounds, he places provisionally among the 
Coelacanthids. 
Our view of the systematic position of the Coelacanthids and their affinities with 
other fishes is of course very closely connected with the development of the classification 
of fishes in general. Agassiz’s classification was based, as we know, in many cases on 
a few characters, taxonomically of little importance, and it fairly often connected 
widely separated forms with one another. We have already seen above that in this 
case the forms brought together by Agassiz under the term «Coelacanthes» were no 
exception. His conception as to the relationship of his <Coelacanthes» with his «Sauroids» 
has also been sufficiently emphasized in the preceding. 
No really clear view as to the relations of the Coelacanthids to other Teleostomes 
was obtained before 1861, with Huxley’s revision of the classification of the Devonian 
fishes. Huxley then placed the Coelacanthids as an independent family together with 
five others 1 ) in his now established order «Crossopterygidae», which at that time also 
comprized a number of forms now assigned to the Dipnoi. He expresses his view as 
follows: «The Coelacanthini as thus understood, are no less distinctly separated from 
other fishes than they are closely united to one another. In the form and arrangement 
of their fins; the structure of the tail and that of the cranium; the form and number 
of the jugular plates; the dentition; the dorsal interspinous bones; the pelvic bones; the 
ossified air bladder; the Coelacanthini differ widely from either the Saurodipterini, the 
Glyptodipterini, or the Ctenodipterini ; but, on the other hand, they agree with these 
families and differ from almost all other fishes, in the same respects as those in which 
the several families just mentioned have been shown to agree with one another; viz., 
the number of the dorsal fins, the lobation of the paired fins, the absence of branchio- 
stegal rays, and their replacement by jugular bones. 
Their special affinities among these three families appear to me to lie chiefly with 
the Ctenodipterini: the scales, the arrangement of the teeth, and the form of the lower 
jaw in the two families presenting many curious analogies.» 
l ) Polypterini, Saurodipterini, Glyptodipterini, Ctenodipterini and Phaneropleurini. 
