the osteological characteristics of the family mur/e

(1)

THE OSTEOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE FAMILY MUR/E-

NIDiE.

BY

Theodore

Gill, M. D., Ph. D.

In a former communication (Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., 1890, pp. 157) I have given " theosteological characteristics ofthe family Anguillidw."

I

now

give those ofone ofthefamilies most remote fromthattype

and

thevery great differences between the

two

will be readily apparent from the comparison of the descriptions

and

illustrations of the

two

forms.

So

great indeed are the differences that Professor

Cope

has taken thetwo as types ofdifferentordersof^fishes.

No

one

who

bases his views onmorphologyratherthan onsuperficialresemblanceinform

will

deny

thatthey are at leastvery distinct families.

MURuENIDiE.

Synonyms as families.

<Ophichthyctes, Dum&il, Zool.Anal., p. 152, 153, 1806.

<Anguilli(le,Baf., ludiced'Ittiol.Sic,p. 37, 1810.

<^Peropteria,/?«/.,AiuilyeedelaNature, fam.,1815.

<Anfruilloides,Latreille,Fam.Nat. duR^gneAn.,p. 142, 1825.

<LesMur^nides,Bisso, Hist.Nat. Europem6rid.,t.3, p. 189, 1826.

<Angu

ill!formes, Ctivier,RegneAnimal,_{t. 2,} p.229, 1817; 2^^d., t. 2, p.348, 1829.

<[Mui8eiiidaB, Bonaparte, Gioru.Accad. d. Scieuze,v. 52(SaggioDistrib. Metod.Ani-

mah

Vertebr.aSangue Freddo,p.34), 1833.

<Mur8BnidaB, Bonaparte,Nuovi AnnalidelloSci.Nat.,t.2, p. 133,1838;t. 4,p.276, 1840.

<^Mur6nides, Agassiz, Recherches surlesPoissous Fossiles,v. 4,p. [xiii,2,12,] 41,"

1843.

<^Mur8Bni(lyB, Swainson, Nat.Hist,andClass.Fishes,etc.,v._2,pp. 195, 333, 1839.

<Mursenoidei, Milller,Abbandl. Akad. Wiss.Berlin, 1846, p. 193.

<MursenidiB, Bonaparte, Cat.Metod. PesciEuropei, p. 6*, 38*, 1846.

<Mnr£euidi3e,Adams,Man.Nat. Hist., p. 110, 1854.

<MurieuidyB, Eaup, Archivf. Naturgesch.,22Jg., B. 1,p. 32, 1856.

<;Muraenidte,Kaup, Cat.Apod. Fish. B. M.,p.55, 1856.

<^Muneui(l8e, Bichardson, Encycl.Brit.,v._12, _{p. 23,} 1856.

<^MuraBuoidei, Bleeker,Enum. Sp.PisciumArch. Ind.,p. xxiii, 1859.

=Gymuothoracoidei,Bleeker,AtlasIcb.Indo-Neerland., v.4, p.72, 1864.

<^Mur{enidsB, Giinther,Cat. Fishesin Brit. Mus., v. 8, p. 19,1870.

<MurcBnid;B, Coj>e, Trans.Am. Phil. Sue, u.s., v. 14, p.456(Oct.7, 1870), 1871.

=Gymnothoracide, Cope,Trans. Am.Phil.Soc,n.s.,v. 14, p.456.

=MuriBuid;e, GUI,Arrangement Fam. Fishes, ]).20, 1872.

=MuriEuje,Fitzinger, Sitzungsber. k.Akad. derWissensch. (Wien), B.67, 1.Abth., p.45, 1873.

Proceedings NationalMuseum,Vol.XIII—No.805.

1C5

(2)

166 OSTEOLOGY OF MUR^NID^E—

GILL.

=Gyninothoraci(li, Poey, Aual.Soc.Esp.Hist. Nat.,t.4(Ennm.Pise.Cub.,p.10),1875.

<Mur.i'ni(hv, GUnther, Int. toStudyofFishes, p. 669, 1880.

<:^Mur;i'uida', Moreau, Hist.Nat. PoissonsFrance,t. 3,p. 574, 1881.

=Murienida^,Jordan4"Giliert, Syn.FishesN.Am.,p. 355, 1882.

=Mur£euida3, Gill,StandardNat.Hist., v.3,p. 107, 1885.

DIAGNOSIS.

Colocephalous

Apodals

with conic head, feeblydeveloped opercular apparatus, long

and

wide ethmoid, posterior maxillmes, pauciserial teeth, roundish lateral branchial apertures, diversiform vertical fins,

pectoral fins (typically) suppressed, scaleless skin, restricted inter- branchial slits,

and

very imperfect branchialskeleton, with the fourth branchialarchmodified,strengthened,

and

supporting pharyngealjaws.*

Description.

Body

^typically anguilliform, subcylindrical forwards, compressed backus ards, with the caudal portion gradually attenuated backwards,

and

with theanus near or inadvance of the middleofthelength.

Scales absent.

Lateral line generally absent.

Head

moderateor small, conic, withallthebonesinvestedinthemus- clesor skin.

Eyes

typically well advanced within the anterior half of the head, directed sideways, ofmoderateor smallsize

and

notcoveredbytheskin.

i^ostiils diversiform; posteriorin front of or partly abovetheeyes, anteriornearthe margin of the snout

and

generallytubular.

Mouth

withthe cleft

more

or lessextending

beyond

theeyes.

Jaws

well developed; maxillinesfarfromsnout,withtheanteriorend enlarged

and

articulatingwiththe oblique truncatedlateral extensions of thevomer,

and

with theclamping processes littledeveloped

and

not directlyappressedtothesides ofthevomer,withslight ledge-likeexten- sionsbehind,butattenuatedbackwards; mandible moderatelystout,but with the dentaryelongated, with the coronoid process well developed

some

distance from its posteriorend, thearticular little produced ex- ternally

beyond

thecondyle(but reachingwell forwardsinternally)

and

not,orlittle, extending

beyond

thecondyle backwards.

Teeth diversiform, generally acute

and some

enlarged, sometimes blunt, generallyextending

on

theshaftofthe

vomer

as

on

the jaws.

Lips obsolete.

Tongue

suppressed.

Periorbital bones moderately^developed.

Opercular apparatus reduced; operculum pedunculated

and

decurved, insertedlow

down

in thehyomandibular; suboperculum interposedbe-

*Ifastillshorter diagnosisbedesired, the familybecontrastedwithallothers,so farasknown, as tongueless engyschistonsApodals, or,agaiu, as'Apodalstviththefonrth branchialarchlimitedto theceratohranchialsandepibranchiala strengthenedandcloselyap- pliedtoelongatedpharyngealbones.

(3)

^°18™'] r ^,'?

PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM. 167

"hiu<l tlirJmttteredgeof the opercukira; iuteropercaluiu small,between the suboperculum

and

preoperculum; preoperculiim small

and

with miiciferous pores.

Branchial apertureslateral

and

roundishorirregular,generallylittle

nearer the breastthan back.

Branchiostegal raysin moderate

number

{9—x), concentrated backwards

and

confined to theepihyals,veryslender

and much

bowed.

Dorsal, anal,

and

caudal,

when

developed, confluent in one uninter- ruptedfin,with allthe rays invested in the

common

integument,

and

imperceptible without dissection; dorsal diversiform, generally com-

mencing

near the head, butsometimes atrophied; anal generally com-

mencing

nearthe anus,butsometimes atrophied; caudalalways feebly developed_; pectorals generallyabsent, rarely developed.*

Branchial arches incomplete,without a glossohyal or urohyal,butwith the ceratohyalsconnected directly with thesymphysisof themandible

by

a ligament; with all the basibranchials

and

hypobranchials obsolete, the ceratobranchials being united with

common

cartilage be- low; ceratobranchials

and

epibranchialsofthe first, second,

and

third arches very slender, of the fourth arch very robust,the ceratobran- chialsof the fourth arch dislocated

upwards and

apposed to thehypo- pharyngeals, as are the epibranchialsto the epipharyngeals; pharyngo- branchialslost,exceptonei^airwhich aredevelopedas elongateddenti- gerousepipharyngeals; hypopharyngealselongated,superposed onthe fourth pairof ceratobranchials asare the epipharyngeals on the

same

pair of epibranchials, the arch thus constituted forming a pair of pharyngeal jaws,behind whichisaslenderfiftharch; the pharyngeal teeth acute

and

in one orfew rows. Interbranchialslits narrow.

Numerous

other osteological peculiarities distinguish thistype, but those

now

^given will sufficientlydifferentiateit from

any

others.

Inasmuch

as there arecertain discrepancies between the description here given

and

the characteristics assigned to the

same

type

by

Pro- fessorCope, an explanation seems to be

demanded.

Professor

Cope

hasdefined the group constituted

by

the Murccnidce as an orderin the followingterms ^:

COLOCEPHALI.

Parietalslargelyincontact; opercularbonesrudimental; theprfBoperculumgener- ally wanting.t Premaxillary rudimental or wanting; ethmoid very wide. Sym-

plectic,maxillary, pterygoid, basal-branchihyal, superior and inferior pharyngeal bonesallwanting,except the fourth superior pharyngeal. Thisisjaw-likeandsup- portedbya strong superior branchihyal; other superior branchihyals wanting or cartilaginous.t

*Myroconger withpectoralfinsisplacedbyDr.GUnther(Cat.Fishes B. M.,v.8,p.

'

93) inthe section of Murainida;engyschistw,characterized bythefactthat"_{the bran-} chialopenings in thepharynxarenarrow slits,"and otherwise composedoftypical Murmnidce.

+Pterygoidsrudimentalorwanting.

—

^Proc. A. A. A. S.

tTrans.Phil.Soc, n.s.,v. 14,p. 456, 1871. See also Proc. Phil.Soc,v. 13, 1873, p.25.

(4)

Ifi8

OSTEOLOGY OF MUR^NIDtE

^GILL.

Ill the relationsof the parietal

and

opercular as well as pterygoid bonesthe Miuienidsdifferfrom the Angiiillidsonly in degree,

and

the preoperculum and pterygoid are manifest in the former,althoughless

developed than in thelatter.

Both waut

the symplectic.

The

maxil- laries are developed, as Professor

Cope

later recognized.*

The

^"inferior pharyngeal bones" are also well developed in the Muraenids, and, although shiftedfrom the fifth arch to the back of the fourth,!

they are evidently homologous with the inferior i^haryngeal bones of the true eels

and

other fishes.

"Other

superior branchihyals"(than thefourth) arenot

"wanting

orcartilaginous"forthose of thefirstthree arches are developedin due proportion.

Professor

Cope

recentlyhas againdefined the ColocephaU,^ contrasting thegroup with the Enclielycepliali (or true ^eels)

and

Lyomeri

by

their having^"opercular bones,

and

oneosseous branchial arch, ceratohyal,"

the Enchelycephalihalving''^ye osseous branchial arches,with ceratohyal."

But

thefivebranchial arches of the Muraenidsinpartat leastarealso ossified, as well as the ceratohyal ^{(^.} ^e.ceratobranchial),

and

the ele-

ments

aredeveloped as explained inthe full description of the family herewith given.

Professor

Cope

in hisfirst arrangement (Trans.

Am.

^Phil, Soc, n. s., V. 14, ^p. 456)recognized only one family of Colocephali, theMurcenidce, but under the Enchelycephalihe

had

asection (3.)distinguished

by

having

"no

pectoral fins; no metapterygoid; pterygoid a slender rod;

ethmoid

much

wider,"

and

the section so distinguished

was

called the family ^"GymnotlioracidccP It

was

later (Proc.

Am.

Phil. Soc, v. 21, p.

25)stated that the familyGymnothoracidw

was

a

synonym

ofMunvnidcv.

"Its presence out of place is probably theresult-of aclerical mistake in not eliminatingit froma previous MS.,written before thedistinction betweenthe orders Enchelycephali

and

Colocephali

was

recognized.

As

it

was

inserted underthelatter head,itsomission fromtheformer

was

to beunderstood."

Professor

Cope

in his later "observations" (Proc. A. A. A. S., 1871, 335, p. 1872) admitted

two

families in his order Colocephali, distin-

guished as follows

:

"Aglossohyal and osseous lateral branchihyals; four opercular bones; a scapular

arch Bataburidai.

Noglossohyalnorosseous branchihyals; three orfewer opercular bones; noscapu-

lar arch ^•^- ^Murwnida;.

The

Batahuridce(orMoringuidw) appeartobe

amply

distinguishable

»Proc.Am.Phil. Soc,v. 21,p. 583, 1884.

tProfessor Cope later (Proc. Am. Phil. Soc, v. 21, p. 584, 1884) explained that

"iuthe Colocephaliâlltheseelements(i.e.glossohyal,"basihyals.andaxial branchihyals,"etc.)arewanting exceptingthe fourth superior pharyngeal,whichhas theform ofanantero-posteriorly placed dentigerousjaw,which opposenthe lateralbranchihyal ofthe fiftharch, or, asît îsgenerallycalled,theinferiorpharyngeal."

tAm.Nat.,v.23, p. 858, 1890.

(5)

VOL.XIII

1890 ^']

PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM.

^lf>9 from the Murcvnida',butuot

by

the charactersthus giveu.

As

already shown,the Murwitidwliave osseous braiichihyalsamiperfect skeletons, probably, never

have

fewer than four opercular bones; finally, if

Myrocongerbelongs to thefamily,

"a

scapulararch" is at least some- timespresent. Itis in factrepresented

by

cartilage in thetypical 3fu- rwnidw.

Professors Jordan and Gilbert,in their "Synopsisof theFishes of North

America"

(1882), have recognized the family Murccnidw with the

same

limits assigned toit

by

Cope. Intheir "AnalysisofFamilies of

Apodes

^" (p.35),they

have

contrasted the Murcenidcein a section {a) characterized

by

^''jyreopercleicanting; lower pharyngealswanting_; gill-

openingsvery small," withanother section [h) distinguished

by

"pre- opercle present; lower pharyngeals present."

Inasmuch

as no such differences exist, the student would beatfirst

thrown

off the track in his attempt to identify a muroenoid fish.

The

characters assigned

must

not be considered, however, to be the results of independent observations

by

the authors,forthereisgood reasontobelievethatthey solely relied

upon

Professor

Cope

for theosteologicalcharacters men- tionedill their description ofthe family.*

The

limitsofthe family Murcenidce are welldeterminedexcept inthe case of the genus Myroconger.

That

genus has been referred tothe Murcvnina

by

Dr. Giinther simply because it is engyschistous.

When

the extent to which fishes of other families vary in the extent of at least the last branchial slit is remembered, the value of such achar- acter

may

well be exaggerated. Nevertheless the genus Myroconger

may

boprovisionally retained

among

the Mursenids untilits osteology or branchial appr-ratus is

known.

Inasmuch, however, as the total suppression of the pectoralsis characteristicof thetypical Murcenidce, andas Myroconger has well-developed pectorals "aboutas long as the snout," which itselfis " of moderate length," it

may

bewellto isolate thatgenusas the representative of apeculiarsubfamily (Myrocongrince)

and

to keep it in abeyance as a doubtful constituent of the family Murcenidce.

Not

less than twenty-six generic

names

have been proposed for the family.

Many,

ifnot most, of these are undoubtedlysuperfluous, but thereis dangerofgoingtoan oppositeextremeinreducingthe

number

tothreeorfour (including Myroconger), as has been done

by

Dr. Giin- ther.

The

course followed

by

Bleeker

and

Jordan seemstobethe

most

judicious,

and

thirteen genera appeartohavecharactersentitling

them

tosuchrank.

A

considerablerangeofvariation is manifested

by

these genera judgingfrom the external appearance,

may

befoundtobe co- ordinated with good osteological characteristics.

•Professors Jordan and Gilbert, inanotherplace (Syn.Fishes,N. A., p. 82),have frankly acknowledged that "theosteologicalcharacters here [there]and elsewhere in thiswork are mostlytaken from Cope's Contribution to the Ichthyologyof the LesserAntilles. Trans.Am.Phil. Soc, 1870."

(6)

170 OSTEOLOGY OF MUR^NID^ —

^GILL.

GENERA OF MURiENIDiE.

MYROCONGRIN^.

(DoubtfullymurjBuoid.)

1. MyrocongerGiinther Cat.FishesB.M.,v. 8,p.93, 1870.

Type M.compreasus Giinther.

MUR^NIN^.

1.

MuR^NA

Linn.

TypeM.helenaLinn.

2. SiDERAKaiq},Cat.Ap.Fish. B. M., p. 70,1856; Jordan4- Gilbert,Proc.U. S.Nat.

Mus,, V.6,p. 209, 1883.

TypeS.jnota(Ahl).

3. PythonichthysPoey,RepertorioFis.Nat.de Cuba, v.2, p.264, 1868.

TypeP. sanguineus (Poey).

4. Priodontophis Eaup, N.alahnl. Fische Hamburger Mus., 1859; Bleeker, Atlas Ich.lud. N^erland., v. 4,p. 74, 1864.

TypeP.ocellatusAg.

5. EURYMYCTERA Kaup,Cat. Ap.Fish. B.M.,p. 72, 1856.

TypeE. schismatorhynchus (Bleeker).

6. EnchelycoreKaup,Cat.Apod. Fish B. M., p. 73, 1856.

TypeE. nigricans(Bonuaterre).

7. StrophiodonMcClelland, Calcutta Journ. Nat.Hist., v.5,p.215? 1844; Bleeker, AtlasIch.Ind. N^erland., V._4,p. 108, 1864.

TypeS. satheteHam. Buch.

8. Thyrsoidea Kaup,Cat. Apod. Fish B. M., p. 73, 1856; Bleeker,Atlas Ich. Ind.

N^erlaud.,V.4,p. 110, 1864.

Type T.macrurusBleeker,

9. Rhinomur^naGarman,Bull.EssexInst.,V.20, p. 114, 1888.

TypeB. quwsitaGarmau.

10. Echidna Forster, "Echirid. h. n. 81,"Walbaum,Artedi Gen.Pise, p. 695,1792;

Bleeker,Atlasich. Ind.N^erland.,p. 77, 1864

=

PacilopMs Kaup, Cat.Apod.

FishB.M., p.98, 1856.

TypeE. nelrulosa (Ahl).

11.

Mur^noblenna

Lac4pede,Hist. Nat. Poissons,v. _5,p.652, 1803; Jordan, Proc^

U.S.Nat. Mus.,V. 5, pp.575, 576, 1883

=

Gymnomur^ena* Bleeker, Giinther etal{notKaup).

Type M.olivaceaLac^pfede.

—

12. Channomur.ena,Bichardson, Ich.Erebus

&

^Terror,p. 96, 1847.

TypeC. vitiataRichardson.

*Thename Gymnomnrcena has been usedforanothergenus,viz:

Gymnomur^na

Lacipede. Hist.Nat. Poissons,v. 5,p. 648, 1803^; Kaup, Cat.Apod.

Fish B. M.,p.103,1856; Jordan <$• Gilbert,Pioc.TJ.S.Nat. Mus.,V. 5,p. 574, 1883.

TypeG. zebra (Shaw).

Thedifferencesbetween this''genua"andEchidnaappeartobeduechieflyto age, asBleekerhasshown.