310 NOTES. 



ing Cephalaspis proper, Pteraspis, and Auchenaspis, — consti- 

 tute a distinct family. The difference between these three 

 does not seem to be very great : for instance, Auchenaspis 

 differs from Cephalaspis only in having the buckler trun- 

 cated behind, and the nape of the neck covered by two wide 

 square plates, with gi'anular surfaces. 



A.S to the differences of opinion between Pander and the 

 author of the " Poot-prints," with regard to some points in 

 the structure of Asterolepis, these can only be decided by 

 farther evidence. Whether it is a helmed fish, as asserted by 

 Hugh Miller, or a cuirassed one, according to Pander, and 

 whether its analogies are with the so-called Placoderms, or 

 with the Ccelacanths, must be determined by new and une- 

 quivocal specimens. The Placoderms must be looked upon 

 as only a possible family, seeing that the standing of so many 

 of its members is doubtful. Huxley finds analogies between 

 the Coccosteus and the Siluroids, to which the Cephalaspians 

 are likewise allied. — L. M. 



JSToteD, p. 192. 



Appendix to the ** Vestiges," No. 12, specially devoted to a refutation 

 of the "Foot -prints," and entitled "Answers to Objections — Mr 

 Hugh Miller." 



After several remarks upon the preceding chapters, the 

 author of the " Vestiges" goes on to say, — " The remainder 

 of the chapter — that on the fossil flora — is an eloquent ex- 

 position of what Mr Miller considers as the proper view to 

 be taken of the palaeozoic flora. I cannot withhold my ad- 

 miration from the ingenuity of illustration and beauty of 

 language exhibited in this pleading, even while I must con- 

 demn it as wholly unsound. The highest authority on the 

 subject fully bears out the view of the facts taken in the 



