PROGRESS IN VERTEBRATE PALEONTOLOGY 463 



Proceedings of the Geologists' Association (xix. pts. 7 and 8) he 

 contributes a thoughtful paper on the study of fossil fishes in 

 general. 



Although morphological rather than palaeontological, a paper 

 by Mr. E. S. Goodrich, of Oxford, on the mode of development 

 and origin of the fins of fishes {Quart. Journ. Micr. Set. June 

 1906), has such an important bearing on palaeontology that a 

 reference to it in the present article seems imperative. It is 

 shown that the mode of development of the dorsal fins is 

 essentially the same as that of the paired fins, both arising as 

 longitudinal folds, into which grow buds from the myotomes, 

 these being subsequently affected by concentration and fusion. 

 The observations of the author practically give the death-blow 

 to the theory that the paired fins of fishes (and consequently the 

 limbs of vertebrates generally) are derived from modified gill- 

 arches, for that theory gives no explanation of this remarkable 

 structural resemblance of the paired to the median fins. On 

 such a theory the resemblance is inexplicable, whereas on the 

 lateral (and median) fold theory such a resemblance is not only 

 easy of explanation, but is precisely what might be expected 

 to occur. 



Those interested in fossil otoliths of fishes should refer to 

 a paper by Mr. G. F. Bassoli on bones of this nature from the 

 Pliocene and Miocene strata of Emilia, Italy, published in the 

 Rivista Ital. Pal. xii. pp. 36 et seq. 



The three remaining papers deal with the classification and 

 phylogeny of fishes. Of the first of the triad, by Mr. L. Dollo 

 {Bull. Soc. Beige Ge'ol. et Pal. xx.), the mere quotation of the title, 

 " Sur quelques points d'Ethologie Paleontologique relatifs aux 

 Poissons," must suffice. The second paper is one by Mr. C. R. 

 Eastman on the Dipnoan affinities of Arthrodires, published in 

 the American Journal of Science for 1906 (xxi. pp. 131 et seq.). 

 The object of this communication seems to be to support the 

 views of those who (like Dr. Smith Woodward) regard the 

 Palaeozoic Arthrodira (as typified by Coccosteus) as an ordinal 

 group of the Dipnoi, or Dipneusti (lung-fishes). " Arthrodires 

 and Ctenodipterines [the Palaeozoic Ctenodontidce and Dipteridce\" 

 writes the author, " may be regarded as specialised off-shoots 

 which diverged in different directions from primitive Dipnoan 

 ancestors ; and the more generalised descendants of these latter 

 have alone survived till the present day. . . . The recognition of 



