Bichirs:(was)Cladistics(etc, sidetrack)

["Cunningham, Betty" <bcunning@nssi.com>]

(this is being sent a second time from the server at work-since the problem that
has existed with the server at work before Christmas seems to be happening 
intermittently)-so sorry if it duplicates.

>and Reedfish [Calamoichthys] >which I presume is what you mean by Ropefish)
     
  I brought the book, SELECTION*CARE*BEHAVIOR*JURASSIC FISHES (Haruto 
Kodera, et all, T.F.H. Publications, 1994 (also published in Japan under the 
name ANCIENT FISH) into work with me.  They refer to the fish commonly 
called ROPEFISH in American aquarium fish stores (and known for it's 
escaping ability) as the Rope Fish (Erpetoichthys calabaricus.  It also 
refers to the common name REED FISH.  They claim it was originally described 
by Max Poll of the Belgian Royal Museum in 1954 as Polypterus enlicheri 
congicus, but they go on to say that the name was actually a junior homonym 
of something described by Boulenger of the British Museum in 1898.
  By this description, I would think it was fairly closely related to 
Bichers, right?
     
>They do not belong in the Sarcopterygii, the branch of the bony fish line 
>that includes coelacanths, lungfishes, lobefins and tetrapods, but to the 
>other line, the Actinopterygii, that includes the vast majority of living 
>fishes.
     
  Again, the book is a little vague as to what Bichers really fit into.  Not 
only do they mention Actinopterygii, but they also discuss its inclusion 
into the Brachyoptergii or even with the sturgeons, but at this point the 
book drops out any genus names and just calls this family the sturgeons.
     
>Within the Actinops the bichirs are considered to be the only living 
>representatives of the earliest line in the group, the palaeoniscoid 
>fishes.  In a modern classification (from Long, The Rise of Fishes) they 
>form the Order Polypteriformes in the Infraclass Chondrostei; other living 
>chondrosteans are the sturgeons and paddlefishes.
     
Where do they fit in with Gars?   Are Gars more primitive or more advanced 
than Bichirs?
     
>I recommend Long's book as a very good intro for a non-fish person like me, 
>though it's a bit heavy on the technical details.
     
Great!.  I usually pick up my fish books at aquarium shops, but I haven't seen 
this title there.  Bichers are briefly mentioned in the Baensch Freshwater 
atlases, and also in Axelrod's Freshwater Fish Atlas of The World , but not in 
as much detail as in this Jurassic Fishes book.  So I have nothing to compare 
the information from it.
     
     
-Betty Cunningham