"At the same time, the only group with which existing Ganoids have close affinities is the Teleostei. The points they have in common with the Elasmobranchii are merely such as are due to the fact that both retain numerous primitive vertebrate characters,[[3]] and the gulf which really separates them is very wide.
[3]. As instances of this we may cite (1) the spiral valve; (2) the frequent presence of a spiracle; (3) the frequent presence of a communication between the pericardium and the body-cavity; (4) the heterocercal tail.
"There is again no indication of any close affinity between the Dipnoans and, at any rate, existing Ganoids.
"Like the Ganoids, the Dipnoans are no doubt remnants of a very primitive stock; but in the conversion of the air-bladder into a true lung, the highly specialized character of their limbs,[[4]] their peculiar autostylic skulls, the fact of their ventral nasal openings leading directly into the mouth, their multi-segmented bars (interspinous bars) directly prolonged from the neural and hæmal and supporting the fin-rays of the unpaired dorsal and ventral fins, and their well-developed cerebral hemispheres, very unlike those of Ganoids and approaching the Amphibian type, they form a very well-defined group and one very distinctly separated from the Ganoids.
[4]. Vide F. M. Balfour, "On the Development of the Skeleton of the Paired Fins of Elasmobranchs," Proc. Zool. Soc., 1881.
"No doubt the Chondrostean Ganoids are nearly as far removed from the Teleostei as from the Dipnoans, but the links uniting these Ganoids with the Teleostei have been so fully preserved in the existing fauna of the globe that the two groups almost run into each other. If, in fact, we were anxious to make any radical change in the ordinary classification of fishes, it would be by uniting the Teleostei and Ganoids, or rather constituting the Teleostei into one of the subgroups of the Ganoids, equivalent to the Chondrostei. We do not recommend such an arrangement, which in view of the great preponderance of the Teleostei amongst living fishes would be highly inconvenient, but the step from Amia to the Teleostei is certainly not so great as that from the Chondrostei to Amia, and is undoubtedly less than that from the Selachii to the Holocephali."
Gill on the Ganoids as a Natural Group.—Dr. Gill observes ("Families of Fishes," 1872): "The name Ganoides (or Ganiolepedoti) was originally framed by Prof. Agassiz as an ordinal term for fishes having the scales (when present) angular and covered with enamel; and in the group so characterized were combined the Ganoids of subsequent authors as well as the Teleostean orders Plectognathi, Lophobranchii, and Nematognathi, and (subsequently) the genus Sudis (Arapaima), the last being regarded as a Cœlacanth. The group has not been accepted with these limits or characters.
"But the researches of Prof. Johannes Müller on the anatomy and classification of the fishes culminated at length in his celebrated memoirs on those fishes for which he retained the ordinal name Ganoidei; those memoirs have left an impression on ichthyology perhaps more decided than made by any other contributions to science, and that published in extenso will ever be classical; numerous as have been the modifications since introduced into the system, no forms except those recognized by Müller (unless it be Dipnoi) have been interjected since among the Ganoids.
"It has been objected that the Ganoids do not constitute a natural group, and that the characters (i.e., chiasma of optic nerves and multivalvular bulbus arteriosus) alleged by Müller to be peculiar to the teleostomous forms combined therein are problematical, and only inferentially supposed to be common to the extinct Ganoids so called, and, finally, such objections couched in too strong language have culminated in the assertion that the characters in question are actually shared by other physostome fishes.
"No demonstration, however, has been presented as yet that any physostome fishes do really have the optic chiasma and multivalvular bulbus arteriosus, and the statement to the contrary seems to have been the result of a venial misapprehension of Prof. Kner's statements, or the offspring of impressions left on the memory by his assertions, in forgetfulness of his exact words.