278 Messrs. Douglas & Scott on the Names applied ~ 
plate is about one-eighth of an inch thick, but diminishes in 
substance towards the margins. 
In this interesting fossil we have evidence of the presence 
of another large Labyrinthodont in the Northumberland coal- 
field, which, judging from the measurements of the plate, 
cannot be less than the large species previously described. 
And if we look to the form of the plate and the character of 
the surface-ornament, it would seem probable that it belonged 
to a reptile not only specifically but likewise generically dis- 
tinct from Pteroplax cornuta. : 
Two or three other different kinds of small sternal plates 
have likewise been found; but particular allusion will be 
made only to one species, which appears to be the best 
characterized. The others must be left for further elucidation. 
Of thisespecies there is a set of three plates lying in juxta- 
position, + Lange not very much disturbed; two are very 
nearly perfect, the third is partially destroyed. ‘They are 
rounded and somewhat elongated, particularly one, which is 
probably a lateral plate ; it is upwards of half an inch long. 
In form and size these plates resemble those of Keraterpeton, 
and in structure they are almost identical. These specimens, 
as well as those figured of that genus by Prof. Huxley in the 
memoir before quoted, appear to have lost the external surface, 
and the bone-fibres beneath are exposed to view, radiating and 
anastomosing in a very regular manner from the centre of 
ossification, which is a little elevated. ‘he appearance is very 
peculiar, and not a little resembles that of some specimens of 
Synocladia from the Magnesian Limestone. In the species 
before us the bony reticulation is not quite so fine as it is in 
K. Galvani. 
[To be continued. | 
XXXVI.—Remarks on the Names applied to the British Hemi- 
ptera Heteroptera. By J. W. Doueras and JOHN Scorr. 
Unpber the above heading (ante, p. 94) Mr. Pascoe has very 
fairly criticised the nomenclature adopted in certain cases by 
hemipterologists, with a special reference to us; and we now 
claim to say a few words in reply. 
The criticism falls chiefly under two heads :— 
1. “ The application of the generic names of the older authors 
to obscure, sometimes extra-European species, instead of to the 
larger number of better-known species which those authors 
must have had most prominently before them, thus rendering 
the use of new names necessary.”’ As an example, is taken “the 
