238 MM. Pictet and Humbert on the Fossil Fishes 
ralist, however, teaches us nothing more than his predecessors, 
as he does not describe these fossils or discuss their zoological 
affinities. De Blainville was the first to study scientifically some 
of the Lebanon fishes. He described two species belonging to the 
genus Clupea, and called them Cl. Beurardi and Cl. brevissima. 
De Blainville’s essay on the Ichthyolites was soon superseded 
by the labours of Agassiz in 1833-1848. Nevertheless the 
learned author of the ‘Recherches sur les Poissons Fossiles’” 
possessed actually very slender materials relative to the fauna of 
Lebanon. He brought to light four new species only, and added 
some details respecting the two Clupee described by De Blainville. 
In 1845 Sir Philip Grey Egerton described a Ray from the 
limestones of Hakel; and in 1849 Heckel made known four 
or five species, brought from Syria by Th. Rotschy. In 1850 
one of the present authors published a special memoir on the 
fishes of the two deposits of Hakel and Sahel Alma, founded upon 
important materials amassed by MM. E. Boissier and Blondel. 
In this memoir twenty new species were described. 
Since this there has been only one work on the fishes of Le- 
banon, that of M. O. G. Costa, who has described and figured 
four new species. 
Researches made in 1860 by one of the authors (A. Hum- 
bert), in the deposits of the coast of Syria, have greatly enriched 
the collection of the Museum of Geneva, both in new species 
and in more perfect examples of such as had been previously 
described. We have thought it advisable to pass in general 
review the fishes of Lebanon, completing, whenever we could, 
the descriptions of the forms already known, and inserting the 
new species. 
We here extract a portion of what we have said in our intro- 
duction concerning the age of the two deposits as attested by 
geological and paleontological evidence; and we also reproduce 
our general remarks on the two ichthyological faunas of Hakel 
and Sahel Alma. 
Geological data. 
The beds which we have been considering are situated on the 
eastern slope of Lebanon, between Tripoli and Beyrout, nearer, 
however, to the last-named town. ‘The nature of the rock and 
the fauna of these two deposits show that they belong to differ- 
ent formations; their age and relative antiquity have, however, 
not yet been satisfactorily determined. 
MM. Agassiz and Heckel, in default of positive information, 
have done no more than put forward certain hypotheses with 
respect to the formation to which should be referred the few 
species which they had within reach. 
