94 SAUROCEPHALUS AND ITS ALLIES. 
graphy, pl. 55,) was taken from a specimen obtained from Dr. Harlan, and is therefore 
correct as regards the genus to which it is referred. 
Count Miinster has described and figured remains, which he refers to three different spe- 
cies of Saurocephalus (Giebel, Fauna der Vorwelt, 88,) but to his work I have not had ac- 
cess, and cannot therefore know whether he is correct or not. 
Reuss (Verst. d. Bohm. Kreideform. 13, pl. iv. fig. 67) has described an isolated tooth 
of a fish, which he attributes to the Saurocephalus lanciformis, but it does not belong to 
this, and I think it doubtful even whether it belongs to the same fish supposed to be that 
species by Agassiz. 
Gervais (Zool. e. Paleont. Franc. pl. 70, figs. 5—7,) has represented several large teeth 
which he attributes to the Sawrocephalus of Harlan, but these belong to the fish supposed 
to be of that genus by Agassiz. ‘ 
To Saurodon Leanus Hays, Agassiz has erroneously referred the fragment of a palate bone 
with teeth (Pois. Foss. v. 102, pl. 25c. figs. 30, 51) of another large sphyrzenoid fish from the 
chalk of Lewes, England. Though the true Sawrocephalus may have had semi-barbed 
teeth to the palate bone, like those just referred to in the fragment described by Agassiz, 
_ yet this could not fairly be inferred from the condition of the living Sphyrena. 
Dixon has noticed and represented (Geol. Sussex, 373, pl. xxx. figs. 28, 29; xxxii.* fig. 10) 
several large, isolated, semi-barbed teeth, and a lower jaw and palate bone with teeth, 
which following Agassiz, have heen referred to Saurodon Leanus, Hays, to which they cer- 
tainly cannot belong. The teeth in the lower jaw just mentioned, resemble in form and 
size those attributed to Saurocephalus striatus (Agassiz, Pois. Foss. v. 102, pl. 25 c. figs. 17, 
20; Dixon, Geol. Sussex, 375, pl. xxxv. figs. 5,) and a careful examination of the specimens 
may prove the remains referred by Agassiz and Dixon to the latter and to Saurodon Leanus 
to belong to the same species of fish, though not the Sawrodon Leanus described by Dr. Hays. 
In concluding the above remarks, I have prepared the following corrected list of the fishes 
which have been attributed to the Saurocephalus of Harlan. 
1. SAUROCEPHALUS LANCIFORMIS, HARLAN. 
Jour. Acad. Nat. Sci. 11-337, pl. xii. figs. 1—5; Med. a. Phys. Res. 362, pl. figs. 1—5; 
Trans. Geol. Soe. 1. 87; Owen: Odontography, 130, pl. 55. 
Saurodon lanciformis Hays: Trans. Phil. Soc. iii. 476, pl. xvi. fig. 11. 
2. SAUROCEPHALUS LEANuUS, Harian. 
Saurodon Leanus Hays: Trans. Am. Phil. Soc. iii. 477, pl. xvi. figs. 1—10. 
Saurocephalus Leanus Harlan: Trans. Geol. Soe. i. 87. 
