The discovery (in the year 1871) of a living representative of a genus hitherto believed to be long extinct, Ceratodus, threw a new light on the affinities of iishes. The writer of the present article, who had the good fortune to examine this fish, was enabled to show that, on the one hand, it was a form most closely allied to Lepidosiren, and, on the other, that it could not be separated from the Ganoid fishes, and therefore that Lepidosiren also was a Ganoid, -a relation already indicated by Huxley in a previous paper on “ Devonian Fishes.”
Having followed the development of the ichthyological system down to this period, we now enumerate the most important contributions to ichthyology which appeared contemporaneously with or subsequently to the publication of the great work of Cuvier and Valenciennes., For thesake of convenience we may arrange these works under twolheads. I. VOYAGES, CONTAINING GENERAL ACCOUNTS or ZOOLOGICAL s COLLECTIONS
A. French.-1. Voyage autour du monde sur les corvettes de S. M. l'Uranie et la Physicienne, sous le commandment de M. Freycinet, “Zoologie-Poissons, " par Quoy et Gaimard (Paris, »1824). 2. Voyage de la Coquille, “ Zoologie, " par Lesson (Paris, 1826*183O). 3. Voyage de l'/astrolabe, sous le cornmandernent de M. J. Dumont d'Urz'ille, “ Poissons, " par Quoy ct Gaimard (Paris, -1834). 4. Voyage au Pole Sud par M. J. Dumont d'U“rville, “ Poissons, " par Hombron et jacquinot (Paris, 1853-1854).
B. English.-1. Voyage of H.M.S. Sulphur, “ Fishes, " by J. Richardson (Lond., 1844“1845). 2. Voyage of H.M.SS. Erebusi and Terror, “Fishes, " by j. Richardson »(Lond., 1846).~ 5. Voyage of H.M.S. Beagle, “ Fishes, " by L~. ienyns (Lond., 1842). C German.-1. Reise der osterreichischen "Fregatte Novara, “ Fische, " von R. Kner (Vienna, 1865). 1
II. FAUNAE I 4
A. Great Britain.-1. R. Parnell, The Natural History of the Fishes of the Firth of Forth (Edinf, 18g8). 2. W. Yarrell, "A History of British Fishes (3rd ed., 'Lon ., IQISQ). 31 J. Couch, History of the Fishes of the British Islands (Lon ., 1862-'1865')'.l B. Denmark and Scandinavia.-1. H. Kroyer, Danmark's Fiske (Copenhagen, 1838-1853). 2. S. Nilsson, Skandinavisk Fauna, vol. iv. “ Fiskarna ” (Lund, 1855). 3. Fries och Ekstrum, Skandinaiiiens Fiskar (Stockh., 1836).
C. R1¢.§ .YlU.-1. Nordmann, “ Ichthyologie pontique, " in DemidofT's Voyage dans la Russie rnéridionale, tome iii. (Paris, 1840). D. Gerrnany-1. Heckel und Kner, Die Susswasserjische der osterreichischen Monarchie (Leipz., 1858). 2. CQ T. E. Siebold, Die Sztsswasserjisehe 'von Mitteleuropa (Lei z., 1863)'.' ', E. Italy and Jllediterraneanf-1. Bonaparte, Icanograjia della fauna italica, tom iii., “Pesci” (Rome, 1832-1841). 2. Costa, Fauna del regno di Napoli, “ Pesci ” (Naples, about 1850). F. France.-1. E. Blanchard, Les Poissons des eaux douces de la France (Paris, 1866).
G. Spanish Peninsula.-The fresh-water fish fauna of Spain and Portugal was almost unknown, until F; Steindachner paid some visits to those countries for the'purpose 'of exploring the principal rivers. His discoveries are described in several papers in the Sitzungsberichte der Akadern-ie zu Wien. B. du Bocage and F. de B. Capcllo made contributions to our knowledge of the marine fishes on the coast of Portugal (Jorn. Scienc. Aca . Lisb.). H. North America.—1. Richardson, Fauna Bareali-Americana, part iii., "Fishes" (Lon ., 1836). 'The species described in this work are nearly all from the British possessions in the north. 2. Delray, Zoology of New York, part iv., “ Fishes 'f (New York, 1842). 3. Reports of the U.S. Comm. of Fish and Fisheries (5 vols., “lashing ton, 1873-1879) and Reports and special publications of the U. . Bureau of Fisheries contain valuable information. Numerous descriptions of North American fresh-water-fishes have been published in the reports of the various US. Government expeditions, and in North American scientific journals, by D. H. Storer, F. Baird, C. Girard, W. 0. Ayres, E. D. Cope, D. S. Jordan, G. Brown Goode, &c. " I. Japan.-1. Fauna Japonica, “Poissons, " par H. Schlegel, (Leiden, 1850).
J. East Indies; Tropical parts of, the Indian ¢1ml'Pactj'ic Oceans.-1. E. Ruppell, Atlas zu der Reise im nordlichen Afrika (Frankf., 1828). 2. E. Ruppell, Neue Wirbelthiere, "'Fische" (Frankf., 1837). 3. R. L. Playfair and A. Gunther, The Fishes of Zanzibar (Lond., 1876). 4. C. B. Klunzinger, Synopsis der Fisthe des Rothen Meers (Vienna, 1870-1871). 5. F. Day, The Fishes of India (Lond., 1865, 4to) contains an account of the fresh-water and marine species. 6. A. Gunther, Die Fische der Sudsee (Hamburg, 4to), from 1873 (in progress). 7. Unsurpassed in activity, as regards the exploration of the lish fauna of the East Indian archipelago, is P. Bleekcr (1819-1878), a surgeon in the service of the Dutch East Indian Government, who, from the ear,1840, for nearly thirty years, amassed immense collections of the fishes of the various islands, and described them in extremely numerous papers, published chiefly in the journals of the' Batavian Society. Soon after his return to Europe (1860) Bleeker commenced to collect the final results of his labours in a grand work, illustrated by coloured plates, Atlas ichthyologigue des Indes Orientales Néerlandaises (Amsterd., fol., 1862), the publication of which was interrupted by the author's death in 1878.,
K. Africa.-1. A. Gunther, “ The Fishes of the Nile, " in Petherick's Travels in Central *Africa A}Lond., 1869). 2. W. Peters, Naturwissenschaftliche Reise nttoh ossambigue, iv., “ F lussfische ” (Berl., 1868, 4t0). ' ' 1
L. West Indies and South America.-I. L. Agassiz, Selecta genera et species pisciurn, quae in itinere per Brasiliam collegit ].» B. de Spix (Munich, 1829, fol.). 2. F. de Castelnau, Anirnaux nouveaux on rares, recueillis pendantlexpédition dans les parties central es de l'A rnérique du Sud, '#' Poissons " (Paris, »1855). 3. L. Vaillant and F. Bocourt, Mission tsoientnique, au 'Mexique et dans l'/lrnérique centrale, “ Poissons " (Paris, 1874). 4 F. Poey, the celebrated naturalist of Havana, devoted many years of study to the fishes of Cuba. His papers and memoirs are published partly in two periodicals, issued by himself, under the title of Memorias sobre la historia natural de la isla' de Cuba (from 1851), and Repertario jisico-natural de la isla de Cuba (from 1865), partly in North American scientific journals. And, finally, F. Steindachner and A. Gunther have published many contributions, accompanied by excellent figures, to our knowledge of the fishes of Central and South America. M. New Zealand.-1. F. W. Hutton and I. Hector, Fishes of New Zealand (Wellington, 1872).
N. Arctic Regions.-»-1. C. Lutken, “ A Revised Catalogue of the Fishes of Greenland, ” in .Manual of the Natural History, Geology and Physics of Greenland (Lond., 1875, Svo). 2. The fishes' of Spitzbergen were examined by A. ]. l/lalmgren (1865). (A. C. G.) II. Hrsroizv AND LITERATURE FROM 1880
In the systematic account which followed the above chapter 1 in the oth edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, the following classification, which is the same as that given in the author's Introduction to the Study of Fishes (London, 1880) was adopted by Albert Gunther:-
Subclass I.: PALAEICHTHYES.
Order I.: Chondropterygii.
With two suborders: Plagiostomata and Holocephala. Order II.: Ganoidei.
With eight suborders: Placodermi, Acanthodini, Dipnoi, Chondrostei, Polypteroidei, Pycnodontoidei, Lepidosteoidei, Amioidei.
Subclass II.: TELEOSTEI.
Order I.: Acanthopter gii.
With the divisions lierciformes, Beryciformes, Kurtiformes, Polynerniformes, Sciaeniformes, Xiphiiformes, Trichiuriformcs, ; Cotto-Scornbriformes, Gobiiformes, Blenniformes Mugiliformes, Gastrosteiformes, Centrisciformes, Gobiesociformes, Channiformes, Labyrinthibranchii, Lophotiforrnes Taeniifornies and Notacanthiformes.
Order II.: Acanthopterygii Pharyngognathi. Order III.: Anucanthini.
With two divisions: Gadoidei and Pleuronectoidei. Order I V.: Physostomi., .
Order V.: Lophobranchii.
Order VI.: P ectognathi.
Subclass III, : CYCLOSTOMATA.
Subclass IV.: LEPTOCARDII.
It was an 'artificial system, in which the most obvious relationships of' the' higher groups were lost sight of, and the results of the already fairly advanced study of the fossil forms to a great extent' discarded. This system -gave rise to much adverse criticism; as T. H; Huxley forcibly put it in a paper published soon after (1883), opposing the division of the main groups into Palaeichthycs and Teleostei:"'Assuredly, if there is any such distinction to be drawn-on the basis of our present knowledge among the' higher fishes, it is between the Ganoids and the Plagiostomes, andnot between the Ganoids and the Teleosteans ”; at the same time expressing his conviction, “ first, that there are no two large groups of animals for which the evidence of a direct genetic connexion is better than in the case of the Ganoids and the Teleosteans; and secondly, that the proposal to separate the Elasmobranchii (Chondropterygii of Gunther), Ganoidei and Dipnoi. of Muller into a group apart from, and equivalent to, the Tcleostei appears to be inconsistent with the plainest relations of these fishes.” This verdict has been endorsed by all subsequent workers' at the classification of fishes. ' '-Gunther's
classification would have been vastly improved