» KECOKDS OF THE AUSTRALIAN MUSEUM. 



there is no greater degi'ee of variation in the size of the teeth 

 than there is in those of our fossil. The maxillae and dentai-ies in 

 both are large bones, although larger in P. mistralis, whilst in 

 Ichthyodectes marathonetisis, as I purpose terming Mr. Black's 

 specimen, the space left by the accidental removal of the pre- 

 maxilla, would accommodate nearly as large a bone as that repre- 

 sented in the figure of that of P. australis. 



If my selection of Ichthyodectes be correct, /. marathonensis 

 resembles /. ctenodon, Cope,^° in possessing straight maxillte, and 

 apparently similar dentaries also. /. ctenodon, in common with 

 /. anaides, Cope,'^ is a much lai'ger fish, and the bones are cer- 

 tainly moi'e massive. With /. serrideiis, Sm. Woodw.,^- /. tenui- 

 dens, Sm. Woodw.,-'^ /. Ttiinor (Egevton), Newton," and /. elegans, 

 Newton,^* hardly any comparison is necessary. In /. hamatus, 

 Cope,"' tlie maxillae are again much curved. 



^^ Cope — Loc. cit., pi. xlvi., f. 1 and 2. 



11 Cope — Loc. cit., pi. xlv., f. 1. 



i-^ Smith Woodward— Brit. Mus. Cat. Foss. Fishes, pt. 4, 1901, pi. viii. 



13 Smith Woodward — Loc. cii., pi. ix., f. 6. 



1^ Newton — Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc, xxxiii., 1877, pi. xxii., f. 14. 



Newton — Loc. cif., pi. xxii., f. 15. 

 1" Cope — Report U.S. Geol. Survey Territories (Hayden's), ii., 1875, pi. 

 xlvi., f. 5, 5a. 



