4 8 
ERIK A : SON: STENSIO 
Huxley ( 1861 ), Zittel (1887), Gunther (1871; 1880) and later Koken. (1911),. Schlosser 
(1918) and Abel. (1919) gave the different Crossopterigian families without any attempt 
to range them in groups according to their mutual affinity. Lutken, on the other hand, 
as early as 1868, grouped them in two sub-divisions, «Cycliferh, and «Rhombiferi» and 
assigned the Coelacanthids to the former. Cope, in connection with his outline of a new 
classification of fishes, published in 1871 (pp. 450—451), suggests, among other things, the 
foundation of certain «orders* within the Crossopterygians. He then puts the Coela¬ 
canthids as the type and the single family in the «order» that he called Actinistia. In 
a few later papers he has also discussed the classification of the Crossopterygii. 
Traquair 1875 (1875 a, p.394) divides the Crossopterygians in two sub-divisions, 
one of which contained the Polypterids, the other all the fossil forms. The latter sub¬ 
division was still further divided by him into three groups,, the first of which comprised 
the Coelacanthids, the, second the Rhombodipterids and Cyclodipterids, and the third 
Holoptychids and Phaneropleurids. 
In 1891 Woodward (1891b) partly accepted the views put forward by Cope but, 
supported by a large amount of material, he was able to go farther. He divides the 
Crossopterygii into four equivalent sub-divisions, Haplistia, Rliipidistia , Actinistia and 
Cladistia, of which Actinistia, in accordance with Cope’s suggestion, contained only the 
Coelacanthids. To Haplistia he referred the family Tarassidae, to Rhipidistia the families 
Holopthychidae, Rhizodontidae, Osteolepidae and Onychodontidae, and to Cladistia the family 
Polypteridae. He looks upon the Coelacanthids as a group that has been very much 
specialized by degeneration (1898 a, pp. 78—80). 
In 1904 Bridge (pp. 476—485) seems to have been influenced to some extent by 
Traquair’s view, as, like this author, he divides the Crossopterygii into two sub-orders, 
one of which comprised the Polypterids alone and the other all fossil forms. For the 
former he adopted the name Cladistia-, the other he called Osteolepida and to it he 
assigned the families Osteolepidae, Rhizodontidae, Holoptychidae and Coelacanthidae. Gregory 
(1907, pp. 437—458), on the other hand, retains Rhipidistia and Actinistia as defined by 
Woodward, but places them together in one order, for which he chooses the name 
Osteolepida. He then sets up this order as of equal rank to the orders Haplistia and 
Cladistia, which he too retains with the same definition as Woodward. 
Goodrich in 1909 (pp. 280—302) represents a view that differs rather essentially 
from all the preceding ones. In his «Division I» of the Teleostomes is included only 
the order Osteolepidoti, which in its turn comprises the sub-orders Haplistia and Rhipidistia 
with the same signification as in the case of Woodward. To «Division ,II» he assigns 
the order <tCoelacatithini», to «Division III» « Polypterinh, and as «Division IV» he gives 
the Actinopterygii. As will be seen, he avoids the term Crossopterygii, and one is also 
struck by the unusually independent position which he assigns to the Coelacanthids as 
opposed to other forms with which they are usually more or less intimately grouped 
together, a view that, was ulso to some extent taken by Watson in. 1912 (1912 a, p. 5). 
Finally Pompeckj' (igi 3 , pp. n36—n 38 ) lays stress on the fact that our views about 
the Crossopterygii are still very incomplete. He looks, upon them only .as a provisional 
order. He considers Cope’s, Woodward’s and Goodrich’s classification of them not very 
successful and instead of these he suggests the foundation of the four sub-orders. 
