of Fossil Fishes. 435 



Genus Pholidophorus, Agassiz. 



P. higginsi, Stutchbury, This PhoUdophorus was named some 

 years ago by ]\Jr. Stutchburj' of the Bristol Institution in honour 

 of its discoverer ^Ir. Higgins, but has not been described. It is 

 a diminutive species, remarkable for the large size of the scales 

 and the thickness of the ganoine which covers them. Those on 

 the auterior part of the trunk are deeply notched ; the duct tubes 

 of the lateral line are very prominent. 



Locality. Lias, xlust. Decade 8. pi. 7. figs. 1-5. 



P. nitidtis, Egerton. This species differs from P. higginsi in 

 the greater regularity and more even surface of the scales, which 

 are also devoid of sen-ations. The body of the fish is more 

 elongated. 



Locality. Lias, Aust. Decade 8. pi. 7. figs. 6—8. 



Genus Legxoxotus, Egerton. 



A small fish remarkable for the extent of the dorsal fin, which 

 occupies the entire length of the back. The scales have consi- 

 derable resemblance to those of PhoUdophorus, near to which 

 genus Legnonotus must be classified. 



L. cothamensis, Egerton. Until a second species of this genus 

 has been discovered, the generic characters will suffice to identify 

 it. The scales are not unlike those of PhoUdophorus higginsi in 

 proportions and relative position and arrangement ; they are 

 more extensively notched at the free margin, and the serrations 

 are sh6rter and more obtuse. The teeth are stronsrer and not so 

 numerous as in the PhoUdophori. 



Locality. This fish was discovered with the two preceding spe- 

 cies in a block of Gotham marble. Decade 8. pi. 7. figs. 9-12. 



G«nus Ptycholepis, Agassiz. 



P. curtus, Egerton. This species is distinguished from the 

 only other species of the genus, Ptycliolepis bollensis, Agass., by 

 its shortened body and the large proportions of the head. 



Locality. Lias, Lyme Regis. Decade 8. pi. 8. 



Genus Oxygnathus, Egerton. 



A genus appertaining to the family of the Sauroidei, near 

 Eugnathus, but distinguished from that genus by the sharpened 

 form and thin texture of the dentigerous bones and the smallness 

 of the teeth. The scales have more affinity with those of 

 Acrolepis. 



28* 



