406 Mr. A. S. Woodward on 



to examine the original specimens further and determine their 

 essential features; moreover, it is desirable in connexion 

 with them to make a renewed study of some of the type 

 specimens described by Pictet and Humbert* in the Natural 

 History Museum at Geneva. I have recently been attempting 

 tiiis task, so far as the Physostomous Teleosteans are con- 

 cerned, and the general results will shortly be summarized in 

 the fourth volume of the British Museum Catalogue of Fossil 

 Fishes. The majority of the specimens described by Davis 

 are to be found in the British Museum, and will thus be 

 noticed in detail in the official work just mentioned. A con- 

 siderable number, however, are now preserved in the Edin- 

 burgh Museum of Science and Art, and some of them seem to 

 demand detailed description elsewhere. The following notes 

 relate to the latter specimens, and furnish, so far as their 

 fragmentary nature will permit, the essential characters by 

 which to determine their systematic position. Through the 

 kindness of Dr. Traquair, to whom I would express my best 

 thanks, I have received the whole series on loan from Edin- 

 burgh, and have thus been able to make direct comparisons 

 with the similar collection in London. 



1. Osmeroides megapterus (Pictet), J. W. Davis, loc. cit. 

 p. 557, pi. xxxii. fig. 4. [=Sardinius crassapinna, 

 Davis.] 



From an examination of Pictet's type specimen of Osme- 

 roides megapterus in Geneva I am convinced that this species 

 is referable to the genus Sardinioides of W. von der Marck f, 

 which has the pelvic fins large, but the pectoral fins rudi- 

 mentary or absent. It is thus evident that both of the 

 specimens figured by Davis under the same specific name are 

 wrongly determined. The second {loc. cit. pi. xxxii. fig. 6) 

 is clearly an example of Osmeroides (regarding the English 

 O. hwesiensis as type), as indicated by its branchiostegal 

 rays, gular plate, fins, and scales. The first {loc. cit. 

 pi. xxxii. fig. 4), however, belongs to another genus and 

 requires further consideration. 



The latter specimen exhibits remains of a series of about 

 ten branchiostegal rays beneath the head, all very slender 

 except the two uppermost. The abdominal vertebra? must 

 have been approximately 20 in number, and the ribs do not 

 appear to have completely encircled the abdominal cavity. 

 The caudal vertebras are shown to have been 19 or 20 in 



* F. J. Pictet, " Description de quelques Poissons Fossiles du Mont 

 Liban " (1850); Pictet and Humbert, " Nouvelles Reckerckes sur lea 

 Poiesons Fossiles du Mont Liban " (1866). 



f Paleeontogr. vol. xi. (1863), p. 45. 



