Cretaceous Fishes from Moimt Lebanon. 319 



Scales large and uniform, moderately thick, smooth and not 

 serrated. 



2. Homonotus pulcher, J. W. Davis, loc. cit. p. 519, pi. xxv. 



fig. 3. \^ = Pycnosterinx Russeggeri, Heck.] 



Careful comparison proves that the type specimen of this 

 so-called new species is a small distorted example of Pycno- 

 sterinx dorsalis, Pictet, which is doubtless to be identified 

 with the original P. Russeggeri of Heckel. 



3. Exocmtoides minor ^ J. W. Davis, loc, cit. p. 551, pi. xxvi. 



fig. 5. 



The more imperfect of the two type specimens of Exo- 

 coetoides minor, now in the Edinburgh Museum, is evidently 

 that described in the text. The interorbital and rostral 

 portions of the cranium are shown to be narrow and com- 

 pressed, while the quadrate articulation is distinct on eacii 

 side, proving the gape of the mouth to be small, not extending 

 backwards beyond the anterior margin of the orbit. The 

 structure of the upper jaw is not clear. The number of 

 vertebrae is not easily ascertained, but seems to be between 

 30 and 40 ; and there are traces of the stout transverse pro- 

 cesses bearing the slender ribs. Remains of the clavicles 

 prove these bones to be large and robust, but the abnormal 

 arrangement here described by Davis is not traceable. The 

 paired fins are described by Davis, but he has omitted to 

 observe a trace of the dorsal between the pelvic pair. His 

 so-called dorsal near the end of the tail is the comparatively 

 small anal fin. 



The second specimen figured by Davis {loc. cit. pi. xxvi. 

 fig. 1), and only briefly noticed by him, is in the British 

 ]\luseum (no. P. 4756). This shows the dorsal fin, with 

 about 7 rays, above or immediately in front of the pelvic pair, 

 while the anal is comparatively small and remote, as in the 

 first specimen now described. 



4. Lewisia ovalis, J. W. Davis, loc. cit. p. 593, pi. xxxiii. 



fig. 6. l=Spaniodon brevis, Pict. & Humb.] 



In his description of the head of this fish Davis does not 

 make sufficient allowance for imperfections and the result of 

 crushing. It exhibits a very stout apparently toothless pre- 

 maxilla, and the articulation of tlie mandible is clearly below 

 the hinder border of the orbit. Remains of the right man- 

 dibular ramus bear a very large erect lanceolate tooth near 



22* 



