2 Dr. Rk. H. Traquair—Homosteus and Coccosteus compared. 
Agassiz himself, isasmuch as he figured as ‘“‘ Asterolepis ornata,” Hich- 
wald, a nuchal or median occipital plate of unmistakeable Pterich- 
thyan character,’ apparently quite unaware of the significance of its 
shape. Nevertheless Agassiz in some controversial remarks on the 
subject insisted that his Chelonichthys (= Asterolepis) had nothing 
to do with Pterichthys !? 
Now, in 1856, Asmuss published a thesis* in which he minutely 
described the Dorpat fossil bones, including the subjects of the 
aforesaid casts, and made out of them two genera, Homosteus and 
Heterosteus, with many species. In the former of these two, namely 
Homosteus, Hugh Miller’s fish, the so-called “ Asterolepis of Strom- 
ness,” is clearly to be recognized. 
Upon these facts Pander insists in his ‘“ Placodermen,” and not 
only did he propose to replace “‘ Asterolepis” by Homosteus in the 
case of Hugh Miller’s fish, but believing Asterolepis, Wichw., to be 
altogether identical with Pterichthys, Agassiz, as the name is un- 
doubtedly prior, he proceeded to cancel the latter name altogether. 
Naturally Pander’s views excited opposition in this country, 
where the names brought into use by Agassiz and Hugh Miller had 
become classic through the writings of these distinguished men. 
Sir Philip Egerton, who does not seem to me to have thoroughly 
understood the situation, fiercely combated the proposals of Pander 
in the following words: “ Having read both sides of the question 
with great care, my own impression is that Prof. Hichwald may 
perhaps have included in his genus Asterolepis some fragments 
which he subsequently ascertained (through the more perfect Scotch 
specimens sent to Russia by Dr. Hamel) to belong to the genus 
Pierichthys of Agassiz, and hence discarding the majority, namely, 
Asterolepis proper, assigns this name to the minority, to the ex- 
clusion of the Agassizian name. In the mean time Prof. Agassiz, 
then engaged upon his ‘ Poissons Fossiles du vieux Grés Rouge,’ 
received through Prof. Brown, from Eichwald himself, specimens of 
his Asterelepis, which had no reference to Pterichthys, but were 
identical with the genus Chelonichthys established upon specimens 
brought over from Russia by Sir Roderick Murchison, and of which 
other specimens were found in the Orkney beds. On making this 
discovery he at once relinquished his own name, Chelonichthys, and 
adopted Asterolepis of Hichwald. If now it is sought to supersede 
Pterichthys of Agassiz by Asterolepis of Kichwald, it is surely just 
that the term Chelonichthys should be retained for Hichwald’s reject- 
amenta, rather than Homosteus of Asmuss, a name of much later date 
than that of Agassiz.” 4 
But whatever the specimens from the Orkney beds may have been, 
if any one will only compare Agassiz’s own figure of Asterolepis 
ornata, Hichwald (‘Old Red,” tab. 30, fig. 5), with the plate No. 10 
in Pander’s restoration of the same species (‘‘ Placodermen,” tab. 6, 
1 Op. cit. tab. xxx. figs, 5, 6. 
2 Op. eit. appendix, p. 152. 
3 Das vollkommenste Hautskelet der bisher bekannten Thierreiche, Dorpat, 1856. 
4 Quart. Journ, Geol. Soc. vol. xvi. 1859, p. 122. 
