Reviews—Prof. K. v. Zittel’s Palichthyology. 129 
certainly does not belong to Ctenopetalus, but has lately been named 
Callopristodus by Traquair.! Peripristis was defined by O. St. John, 
not Newberry and Worthen. 
The Myliobatide are next described, and Cope’s Apocopodon, 
from the Chalk of Brazil, is quoted as their forerunner. Here must 
now also be added Ptychodus. Numerous species of the common 
genera are cited, and the complete specimen of Myliobatis Gazolaz, 
discovered by Baron de Zigno at Monte Bolca, is referred to. ‘The 
genus Zygobatis is retained distinct from Rhinoptera. 
- In the Rhinobatide, the Jurassic Spathobatis is said to be only 
distinguished from the living Rhinobatus by the less jointed character 
of the pectoral fin-rays, and a fine figure of S. mirabilis (original 
1-7 m. long) is given. Ueterederrntis and Belemnobatis are also 
included in this family. The Rajidze follow, and are mostly known 
only by fragments of the dermal armour. The Liassic Arthropterus 
and Cyclarthrus are doubtfully placed here; and there are a few 
teeth of Raja, besides the placoid asperities so common in the 
Tertiaries. In the Trygonide are included fossil representatives of 
Trygon, Teniura, Anacanthus, and Urolophus, besides two supposed 
extinct genera, Alexandri[n]|um and Xiphotrygon, all from Tertiary 
strata. To the Torpedinide are assigned Torpedo (Narcobatus) 
gigantea from Monte Bolca, and vertebree of Astrape from the North 
German Tertiaries; also the Cretaceous Cyclobatis, which really 
belongs to the Trygonide.” 
HonocrePHatt. 
The Holocephali oceupy the succeeding nine pages, and all except 
two are placed in the family Chimeride. The dentary plates are 
described as “teeth,” but Newton’s determination of those of the 
upper jaw as “premaxillary” and “maxillary” is regarded as 
erroneous, and these are merely termed respectively ‘ vorderer 
Oberzahn” and “hinterer Oberzahn.” The Devonian Rhynchodus 
and Ptychodus appear as the earliest representatives of the family. 
Ischyodus is next treated in detail, with a figure of von Meyer's 
Ganodus avita (Lith. Stone), which is considered a member of the 
genus. Ganodus is retained for the Stonesfield fossils, originally so 
named by Egerton; and the new generic name of Metopacanthus is 
proposed for Egerton’s Ischyodus orthorhinus, from Lyme Regis. 
Then follows an Taccount of the later Chimezroids, so far as ae 
and a distinct section is devoted to the Liassic Prognathodus, and 
a new allied genus, Chimeropsis, from the Lithographic Stone of 
Bavaria. Dr. von Zittel considers that the so-called maxillary teeth 
of Prognathodus are really mandibular, and that the curious elongated 
spine-like tooth pertains to the lower jaw. Chimeropsis has subse- 
quently been more completely elucidated by J. Reis in the Palzonto- 
graphica. 
The description of the Selachian and Chimeeroid fishes is concluded 
by a long section upon Ichthyodorulites, which treats of all doubtful 
1 Grot. Maga. [3] Vol. V. (1888), p. 86. 
2 Guou. Maa. [3] Vol. LV. (1887), p. 408. 
DECADE III.—VOL. VI.—NO. III. 9 
