FOSSIL FISHES. We 
T. C. Winkler has described two Ceelacanth fishes which may be com- 
pared with Diplurus. Of these, the first is from the Solenhofen (Jurassic) 
limestone, and he has called it Calacanthus Haarlemensis.’ This is in some 
respects imperfectly preserved, but is apparently distinct from any other 
described fish, although it deserves more careful comparison with Holoph- 
agus gulo Kgerton. The specimen upon which Mr. Winkler’s description 
was based is a fish about one foot in length, of which the outlines are 
fringed and somewhat obscured by dendritic crystallizations of manganese 
common in the Solenhofen fossils. The scales have all disappeared, but 
some indications of their surface markings are visible at certain points. If 
correctly reported these consist of fine, parallel, nearly straight lines run- 
ning in an antero-posterior direction, This fish would also seem to be 
peculiar in the strength of the ventral fins, which are represented as fully 
equal in size to the dorsals. In this character it seems to be distinguished 
from all other known members of the family. The surface markings of 
the scales are like those of our Diplurus, but that fish is much larger, the 
ventral fins are not so strong, and the supplemental caudal is more dis- 
tinctly separated. 
The second of the two species described by Mr. Winkler he called 
Celacanthus giganteus.” This was obtained from the Trias of Wiirzburg. 
Its derivation makes it of special interest for comparison with Dipluwrus, be- 
cause no other Triassic Coelacanth is known. Unfortunately, however, the 
specimen described by Mr. Winkler is a mere fragment. This indicates a 
fish of enormous size. The caudal fin rays, the only ones yet known, are 
six inches long and as large as goose quills; the supplemental caudal is 
represented as small and as closely approximated to the anterior caudal. 
Whether these fishes described by Mr. Winkler should really be in- 
cluded in the same genus with the species of Celacanthus from the Coal 
Measures and Permian remains to be seen. The general structure of all 
the members of the family is so like, that much more material and that 
well preserved, will be necessary before exact comparison can be made. 
It is probable that the teeth will furnish the best diagnostic characters. 
The teeth of our Carboniferous Celacanthus are certainly conical and 
! Archives Musée Teyler, vol. 3, p. 101. 2 Tbid., vol. 5, p. 147, 
