240 MM. Pictet and Humbert on the Fossil Fishes 
labelled as coming from Mount Carmel]; M. Agassiz saw in the 
Zurich Museum a specimen of this species sent from Saint-Jean 
d’Acre*; Mr. Williamson+ found it at Gebel-Suneen (very 
probably Sannina), near Beyrout; and, finally, as we have just 
seen, M. de Tchihatcheff has procured it at Makrikoi near Con- 
stantinople, where it is associated with Hurypholis Boisseri and 
Cyclobatis oligodactylus. 
The deposit of Hakel must have been formed at a very slight 
distance from the land; for our late researches afforded a wing- 
less orthopterous insect. 
With regard to the second deposit, we have nothing to add 
to what Botta has said on the subject, with the aid of certain 
opportunities for comparison which we have not had at our dis- 
posal. 
The convent of Sahel Alma, situated 17 or 18 kilometres 
north of Beyrout, is erected on a sharp declivity which descends 
to the sea. It is immediately beneath the walls of the convent, 
in a field of mulberry-trees, and covered solely by the vegetable 
earth, that the calcareous marl containing the fishes occurs. 
With them we have collected Crustaceans and two Ammonites. 
These latter fossils are, unfortunately, not sufficiently preserved 
to admit of a strict determination. 
Valenciennes, in examining the fishes collected at Makrikoi 
by M. Tchihatcheff, found a species of a new genus, which he 
named, without, however, describing it, Strymonia siricat. It 
comes from a light limestone perfectly identical with that of Sahel 
Alma, while the other species occur in a limestone very similar to 
that of Hakel. It would seem, therefore, that the two fish-beds 
of Lebanon are found also at Constantinople. 
Age of the two Ichthyological Faunas of Mount Libanus, 
according to paleontological data. 
We think we are able to establish as almost certain that both 
these faunas belong to the Cretaceous period. It would be, on 
special grounds, impossible to attribute them to the Jurassic. 
The greater number of Teleostean fishes which they afford, to- 
gether with the absence of Ganoids, show them to be unques- 
tionably posterior to that period. 
It seems to us no less evident that they are not Tertiary faunas. 
For proof we have :— 
1. The presence of two species of Ammonites in the beds of 
Sahel Alma, and of an Aptychus in those of Hakel. 
* It is very possible that Saint-Jean d’Acre and Mount Carmel corre- 
spond to one and the same locality. 
tT Proceed. Geol. Soc. Lond. vol. i. p. 291. 
~ Bull. de la Soe. Géol. de France, 2° série, 1851, t. viii. p. 301. 
