278 Messrs. Douglas & Scott on the Names ajpiylied 



plate is about one-eiglith of an inch thick, but diminishes in 

 substance towards tlie margins. 



In this interesting fossil we have evidence of the presence 

 of another large Labjrinthodont in the Northumberland coal- 

 field, Avhich, 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 this species there is a set of three plates lying in juxta- 

 position, apparently 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 (diKeraterpeton^ 

 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. The 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. Oalvani. 



[To be continued.] 



XXXVI. — Remarhs on the Names applied to the British Hemi- 

 ptera Heteroptera. By J. W. Douglas and John Scott. 



Under 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 Ijefore them, thus rendering 

 the use of new names necessary." As an example, is taken "the 



