Miscellaneous. 161 
Eusthenopteron Foordi, nov. gen. et sp. 
The name Husthenopteron®™ is proposed for a supposed new genus, 
which resembles the Yristichopterus of Sir Philip Egerton in the 
shape and ornamentation of its scales and cranial plates, in the cir- 
cumstance that the fin-rays of its anal and second dorsal fins are 
both supported by three osselets articulated to a broad interspinous 
apophysis, and in some other important particulars. But the ver- 
tebral centres of TZristichopterus are said to be ossified, and the 
osselets which support the rays of the lower lobe of the tail are 
described as ‘‘ springing from eight or nine interspinous bones,” 
whereas in Husthenopteron the vertebral centres are not ossified, and 
the caudal osselets are articulated to the modified hzemal spines. In 
Eusthenopteron, too, the*osselets and interspinous bones of the anal 
and second dorsal are larger than those of Z'ristichopterus, and diffe- 
rent also in their shape and relative proportions. 
The species, which is named after its discoverer, Mr. A. H. 
Foord, may be recognized by its large size (it appears to have 
attained to a length of 2 feet or more) and by its narrowly elon- 
gated and acutely pointed first dorsal fin. 
Glyptolepis microlepidotus, Agassiz. 
A single nearly perfect specimen of a small-scaled Gilyptolepis 
which cannot at present be distinguished from the above-named 
European species. 
Glyptolepis 
A second species of Glyptolepis, apparently allied to the G‘. lep- 
topterus of Agassiz, is indicated by a number of large detached 
scales, nearly an inch in diameter, which are associated with slender 
rib-bones, an operculum, and a fragment of a jaw with teeth on 
the same small slabs of shale. 
Cheirolepis canadensis, Noy. sp. 
Four exquisitely preserved specimens, two of which are nearly 
perfect, of a large Cheirolepis, which resembles the C. macrocephalus 
of M‘Coy and the C. Cumingie of Agassiz in the size, contour, and 
sculpture of the scales of the body and fins, but which seems to 
differ from both in the relative position of its fins. In C. cana- 
densis the ventrals are separated from the pectorals by a short 
interval and from the anal by a much longer one. In C. macro- 
cephalus, on the other hand, the ventrals are represented by M‘Coy ~ 
as being nearer to the anal than they are to the pectorals, while in 
O. Cumingic, according to Hugh Miller, “ the large pectorals almost 
encroach on the ventrals and the ventrals on the anal fin.” 
A more detailed description of these species will be found in the 
current number of the ‘ Canadian Naturalist’ 7}. 
* From evoGevis, stout, and zrépop, a fin. 
+ Vol. x., new series. 
