412 . Notices of British and Foreign Memoirs. 
fect fragment in the National Collection). It has only one upper and 
one lower dentigerous plate, the denticles of which are much smaller 
and more equal in size and form than those of Phyllodus. ‘They are 
of a round-pointed form, so that a slightly inclined vertical section 
would give the form of a truncated cone. The whole tooth, judging ~ 
from the specimens known, is much smaller than that of Phyllodus. 
With the exception of a Cretaceous species from Bilin, described 
by Prof. Reuss, all the species of the preceding two genera are 
exclusively British fossils of the Eocene period, and chiefly from the 
London Clay of the Isle of Sheppey. They are also found in the Red 
Crag, into which they have been drifted from the older Eocene de- 
posit. The Continental specimens described as Phyllodus our author 
refers to Pharyngodopilus and other genera. 
Pharyngodopilus, Cocchi, is characterized by having two upper 
and one lower dentigerous -plate, the form and arrangement of the 
denticles of which are very different from those of Phyllodus and Eger- 
tonia ; though varying in form and size, they have not that extreme 
irrecularity characteristic of Phyllodus, and are globular or elongated. 
The species are of Miocene and Pliocene age, and are unknown in 
British deposits, although two (Ph. Africanus and Ph, Canariensis) 
are founded upon specimens in the British Museum. 
The genus was determined by the author in 1858, and then named | 
by him Labradus. 
To these three genera the author, in an appendix, adds a fourth 
( Taurinichthys, Cocchi), founded on part of a lower jaw bone with 
the dentigerous plate attached, and-which had been previously de- 
scribed by Michelotti as Scarus Miocenicus. 
In this notice we can do little more than direct attention to the 
work itself, which is a most valuable addition to the subject of which 
it treats. An attempt even to epitomize the author’s descriptions 
of the mode of growth of the teeth, and the various species, with 
his reasons for forming them into a new family (detaching Phyl- 
lodus from the Ganoid group of Pycnodonts, where Prof. Agassiz 
had placed it, and arranging it with the Cycloids, to which order 
Prof. Owen, in his ‘Odontography,’ thought it belonged, though 
believing its affinities to bé with Scarus among the Labride)— 
would occupy more space than we can afford. 
The work is illustrated by six carefully executed plates containing 
several figures of all the species. We annex a list of those now 
added to our already rich catalogue of Fossil Fishes :— 
Phyllodus Colet, Cocchi. Phyllodus secundarius, Cocchi. 
hexagonalis, ,, submedius, » 
— — speciosus, 7 Egertonia tsodonta, 
— Bowerbanku, ,, 
” 
Wi: 
TI. Tue ‘Naturay History Review. No. XIX., July 18€5. 
HIS Number contains two important Paleontological papers. One, 
‘On the Dentition of Rhinoceros megarhinus, by Mr. Boyd 
Dawkins, is a very valuable communication: the author gives the . 
