TRIASSIC FISHES FROM -SPITZBERGEN 
47 
Huxley also finds in certain cases a considerable agreement between the Coela- 
canthids and Lepidosiren, and, moreover, as he included Dipterus in the family <Cteno- 
dipterini» and with hesitation Ceratodus and Tristochopterus as well, he apparently 
considered the Coelacanthids to be most closely related to the forms we now look 
upon as primitive Dipnoi. 
Lutken 1868 (pp. 60—64) considers the Coelacanthids most closely related to his «C 'yclo- 
dipterini », to which he assigned, among others, Dipterus, Glyptolepis, Holoptychins , Gyro- 
p tyc hius M’Coy, Rhizodopsis Young, Rhizodus Owen, StrepsodusYovNoandPhaneropleuronHuxL-EY. 
The discovery of the recent Ceratodus in 1870 played an important part in the 
conception of the relationship of the Coelacanthids. Krefft (1870) already considered 
Ceratodus as being most closely related to Lepidosiren, and in 1871 Gunther definitely 
proved it to be a dipnoan. At the same time Gunther (p. 557) also showed that at least 
one of the forms included by Huxley among his <Ctenodipterinu, namely Dipterus, had 
to be placed among the Dipnoi, a view that was confirmed some years later by Traquair 
(1878, pp. 1—12). Gunther (1871) also includes the genus Phaneropleuron among his 
Dipnoi, although with hesitation. 
In connection with this revision Gunther also enters on the question of the relation¬ 
ship between the Coelacanthids and other fishes. After first criticizing the family 
«Coelacanthi-» in the definition given to it by Agassiz he continues (p. 559): «Thioliere 
and Huxley have independently come to the conclusion that Agassiz’s family of Coela- 
canths comprises too many heterogeneous forms to allow us to regard the affinities 
of a fish as determined by its being referred to it. Both have limited the term to the 
genus Coelacanthus as type and a few other forms closely allied to it. The family thus 
restricted appears to me even more remote from the Dipnoi than the other «Crosso- 
pterygians». Fin-rays in definite numbers, joined to the interspinous bones, obtuse 
paired fins as in Polypterus, a double pelvis, developed upper jaws with small conical 
teeth, external nostrils, are characters sufficient to prevent us from associating Ceratodus 
and its allies with the Coelacanths, which form not only a distinct family, but belong, 
according to my view, to a distinct suborder® 1 ). 
In 1873 Lutken (pp. 46—49), in accordance with the new facts, excluded Dipterus, 
Ctenodus Agassiz and Phaneropleuron from his «Cyclodipterini». With regard to the 
Coelacanthids he has nothing to add and in his new synoptic table of the ganoids, 
as well as in the earlier one, they are put immediately after the «Cyclodipterini». 
Zittel later on (1887) in his «Handbuch» placed them between «Phaneropleurini» and 
« Cyclodip terini ». 
Curiously enough, even as late as 1888, when publishing his «Monographie» Reis 
seems to have been unaware of the discussion on the systematic relations of the Coela¬ 
canthids that had been introduced into the literature in consequence of the discovery 
of Ceratodus. At least he does not mention any paper of this sort and even Lutken’s 
work on the limitation of the ganoids was apparently not very well known to him. It 
is consequently not so strange that he sticks to and even thinks that he was obtained 
additional proofs for the view put forward by Huxley as early as 1861. 
J ) The order Ganoidei was divided by Gunther into the following sub-orders: Amioidei, Lepidosteidei, 
Polypteroidei and Dipnoi. 
