Mr. E. E. Austen on Hippoboscide. 259 
described by Davis *, as one of the Cretaceous Dercetide, 
under the name of Dercetis limhamnensis. Both these deter- 
minations are undoubtedly erroneous, and the characters of the 
fossil, so far as preserved, are those of an Apodal fish. 
As shown by the description and figure published by Davis 
(Joc. cit.), this specimen comprises only the head, clavicle, and 
anterior part of the vertebral column of a long and slender 
fish. The head-bones are obviously thick and of open tex- 
ture, quite unlike those of the Dercetide 7; while the occipital 
and otic regions are sufficiently well preserved to indicate that 
they are eel-like and totally different from those of any known 
Gadide. All the remains, however, are in a crushed and 
broken condition, so that the details of the osteology are only 
vaguely observable. ‘The teeth are very small and blunt. 
The vertebre of the abdominal region are exposed from above 
or below, and chiefly remarkable for the large size of their 
transverse processes, which are laminar in form and taper to 
a point at their free end. ‘These processes were correctly 
recognized by Lundgren and Dames, but were mistaken by 
Davis for scutes crushed upon the vertebral centra. The 
ribs are not preserved. A sigmoidally bent clavicle, exactly 
like that of an eel (described and figured by Davisas scapula), 
is displaced at some distance behind the head. There are no 
seales or scutes. 
It is obvious that so imperfect a fossil cannot be satisfac- 
torily determined either generically or specifically. The 
specimen, however, needs a name for reference. As it exhibits 
no characters separating it from the Urenchelys of the 
Lebanon Chalk, it may be provisionally referred to that 
genus. It is therefore to be regarded as representing a 
species, Urenchelys limhamnensis (Davis), which awaits 
adequate definition. It indicates a larger fish than the 
Lebanon species, and approaches U. anglicus in size. 
XXII.—WNotes on Hippoboscidee (Diptera Pupipara) in the 
Collection of the British Museum. By Ernest E. Austen. 
THE following notes, which are chiefly concerned with syno- 
nymy and include no descriptions of new species, embody the 
conclusions at which the author has arrived while re-arranging 
* J. W. Davis, ‘On the Fossil Fish of the Cretaceous Formations of 
Scandinavia,” Trans. Roy. Dublin Soe, [2] vol. iv. (1890) p. 491, pl. xlv. 
figs, 1, 2. 
+ A. 5S. Woodward, Catal. Foss. Fishes B. M. pt. iv. (1901) p. 185, 
pl. xii. fig. 4. 
