The italicized portion of this sentence is only true in respect to that part of the fringe of fin surrounding the end of the body, which is not only homotypal with, but actually part of, the dorsal and anal fins.
Having settled, then, that the tails of Chimæra and of Eel-like Teleostei are simply special modifications of the typical form of tail of the group of Fishes to which they respectively belong, we come to the consideration of the Dipnoi, in which the tail-fin presents problems of more interest and greater difficulty than those we have so far had to deal with.
The undoubtedly very ancient and primitive character of the Dipnoi has led to the view, implicitly if not definitely stated in most text-books, that their tail-fin retains the character of the piscine tail prior to the formation of the ventral caudal lobe, a stage which is repeated embryologically in the pre-heterocercal condition of the tail in ordinary Fishes.
Through the want of embryological data, and in the absence of really careful histological examination of the tail of any of the Dipnoi, we are not willing to speak with very great confidence as to its nature; we are nevertheless of the opinion that the facts we can bring forward on this head are sufficient to shew that the tail of the existing Dipnoi is largely aborted, so that it is more or less comparable with that of the Eel.
We have had opportunities of examining the structure of the tail of Ceratodus and Protopterus in dissected specimens in the Cambridge Museum. The vertebral axis runs to the ends of the tail without shewing any signs of becoming dorsally flexed. At some distance from the end of the tail the fin-rays are supported by what are apparently segmented spinous prolongations of the neural and hæmal arches. The dorsal elements are placed above the longitudinal dorsal cord, and occupy therefore the same position as the independent elements of the neural arches of Lepidosteus. They are therefore to be regarded as homologous with the dorsal fin-supports or interspinous bones of other types. The corresponding ventral elements are therefore also to be regarded as interspinous bones.
In view of the fact that the fin-supports, whenever their development has been observed, are found to be formed independently of the neural and hæmal arches, we may fairly assume that this is also true for what we have identified as the interspinous elements in the Dipnoi.
The interspinous elements become gradually shorter as the end of the tail is approached, and it is very difficult from a simple examination of dissected specimens to make out how far any of the posterior fin-rays are supported by the hæmal arches only. To this question we shall return, but we may remark that, although there is a prolongation backwards of the vertebral axis beyond the last interspinous elements, composed it would seem of the coalesced neural and hæmal arches but without the notochord, yet by far the majority of the fin-rays which constitute the apparent caudal fin are supported by interspinous elements.
The grounds on which we hold that the tail of the Dipnoi is to be regarded as a degenerate rather than primitive type of tail are the following:—
(1) If it be granted that a diphycercal or protocercal form of tail must have preceded a heterocercal form, it is also clear that the ventral fin-rays of such a tail must have been supported, as in Polypterus and Calamoicthys, by hæmal arches, and not by interspinous elements; otherwise, a special ventral lobe, giving a heterocercal character to the tail, and provided with fin-rays supported only by hæmal arches, could never have become evolved from the protocercal tail-fin. Since the ventral fin-rays of the tail of the Dipnoi are supported by interspinous elements and not by hæmal arches, this tail-fin cannot claim to have the character of that primitive type of diphycercal or protocercal tail from which the heterocercal tail must be supposed to have been evolved.
(2) Since the nearest allies of the Dipnoi are to be found in Polypterus and the Crossopterygidæ of Huxley, and since in these forms (as evinced by the structure of the tail-fin of Polypterus, and the transitional type between a heterocercal and diphycercal form of fin observable in fossil Crossopterygidæ) the ventral fin-rays of the caudal fin were clearly supported by hæmal arches and not by interspinous elements, it is rendered highly probable that the absence of fin-rays so supported in the Dipnoi is a result of degeneration of the posterior part of the tail.