Reviews—Prof. Fritsech—Launa of Gas-coal. Le 
were discovered in any of the Bohemian genera,—the edentulous 
character of Acanthodes being thus conclusively confirmed. 
In the shoulder-girdle he. designates the well-known ossicle sup- 
porting the pectoral spine as ‘“‘clavicula” and therefore does not 
adopt Mr. Smith Woodward’s view that this element in Acanthodes 
is a basal piece or Basipterygium, while interpreting as clavicle the 
very same piece as it occurs in Diplacanthus. Here, however, Prof. 
Fritsch expresses himself very cautiously, saying that comparative 
anatomists would find a difficulty in agreeing about these points even 
“wenn sie die Sachen frisch vos sich hatten.” 
The morphology of the paired limbs of Acanthodes is certainly a 
very difficult question, and Dr. Fritsch ventures to suggest a new 
theory, namely that the entire pectoral spine is in fact a calcified 
archypterygium. To that view I cannot say I am converted, any 
more than to the very different one entertained by Mr. Smith 
Woodward. 
Before leaving the Acanthodei, Prof. Fritsch inserts a couple of | 
pages concerning Macheracanthus Bohemicus (Barrande), which he, 
along with Reis, considers referable to this group, owing to the fact 
that in one of the specimens described and figured by Barrande, a 
bone resembling an Acanthodian clavicle occurs in close association 
with fracments of two of those spines, while on the under side of 
the stone, square shaped scales like those of Acanthodes are found. 
For this he proposes the new generic and specific names Dinacanthodes 
Sussii. Now it is evident that if the specimen with the clavicular 
fragment discovered by Prof. Stiss belongs to the same species as the 
others also described and figured by Barrande on a preceding page 
of his work as Ctenacanthus Bohemicus, and Prof. Fritsch nowhere 
says that it does not, the latter specific name has undoubted priority 
and cannot be displaced. 
We must agree with the author in desiring a fresh investigation 
into the nature of the other species of Macheeracanthus, on the 
results of which indeed depends the validity of the name Dina- 
canthodes. For if the Bohemian spine should really: prove to 
belong to the same genus with Newberry’s Macheracanthus sulcatus, 
the type of the genus, then Prof. Fritsch’s new name cannot be 
maintained. 
After a brief notice of a scale of Megalichthys (M. nitens, Fr.) 
from Kounova, the author enters the domain of the Acipenseroid 
fishes, for which he, however, retains the older, though less appro- 
priate name of Chondrostei, the description of the remarkable genus 
and species Trissolepis Kounoviensis bringing the present part toa 
conclusion. This he makes into the type of a new family, Trisso- 
lepidae, of which I shall translate his definition. 
“Body Paleeoniscus-like, scales behind the head denticulated, on 
the body eycloid, on the tail rhombic. Anterior margins of fins 
without fulcra. Palate with strong teeth. Gill arches with strong 
gill-rakers. Middle line of the back only in front of the dorsal fin 
with V scales, which gradually pass into the fin rays.” 
Now as these characters appear to me to be only of generic and 
DECADE I1I.—VOL X.—wNO. Iv. 12 
d 
