A. Smith-  Woodward— On Rhinobatus Bugesiacus. 390, 
state of preservation; and this is now exhibited in the form of a 
slab upon the west wall of the Gallery of Fossil Fishes. 
The specimen in question is complete in all important respects, 
only the proximal portion of the left pectoral fin and non-essential 
parts of the median fins being wanting ; but the vertebral column, 
except towards the extremity of the tail, is shown as fragments or 
merely in impression, and the jaws are unfortunately buried in the 
matrix. The fish is exposed from the dorsal aspect, measuring 
1:50 m. (about 5 ft.) in total length; and in general form it agrees 
with the male individual represented in the accompanying figure. 
The snout is remarkably produced, and on the outer side of each 
nasal capsule is a long slender forwardly-directed cartilage, evidently 
to be regarded as prepalatine. The basal pterygia of the right 
pectoral fin are more clearly shown than those of the Munich fossil, 
as here figured, the mesopterygium being large and broad, the pro- 
pterygium long, slender, and segmented distally, and the metaptery- 
gium somewhat stouter than the latter; the large, very broad 
cartilaginous fin-rays are also all distinct. The dorsal fins are rela- 
tively larger than indicated by the outlines in the figure; and the 
caudal fin has a slightly greater expanse, though this may be due to 
difference in crushing during fossilization. Coarse rounded sha- 
green-granules cover the dorsal aspect of the cranium, the pectoral 
arch, and the longitudinal middle line of the back; but there are 
no large tubercles or spinous defences. 
So long ago as 1836, Count Miinster! briefly noticed the caudal 
extremity of a large Selachian from the Lithographic Stone of 
Kelheim under the name of Aellopos elongatus; and in 1848, Agassiz? 
recorded the occurrence of a very large pectoral fin with the pro- 
visional name of Huryarthra Muensterii. Both these fossils probably 
pertain to the fish now under discussion, as already suggested by 
v. Zittel, and, to a certain extent, also by Wagner; but they were 
not sufficiently described for recognition before 1854, when Thiolliére® 
gave detailed notes and figures of specimens from the Lithographic 
Stone of Cirin, Ain, France, identical in every respect, except size, 
with the Bavarian species. The name proposed by Thiolli¢re— 
Spathobatis Bugesiacus—is thus applicable to this species; and as 
there is no significant difference between ‘“ Spathobatis” and the 
recent Rhinobatus, we prefer to regard the former generic name 
merely as a synonym of the latter. 
When studying the Bavarian “ Spathobatis,” Wagner himself 
distinctly perceived its identity with the French species described 
by Thiolliére ; but owing to the fact, that the former attained twice 
the size of the latter, he considered a distinct specific name justifiable, 
and suggested that of S. mirabilis. According to modern ideas of 
nomenclature, however, this name must become a synonym; and 
an examination of the type-specimen of S. morinicus, Sauvage,* from 
99 
1 Neues Jahrb. 1836, p. 581. 
2 Rech. Poiss. Foss. vol. iii. p. 382. 
5 Poiss. Foss. Bugey, pt. i. p. 7, pls. i. il. 
4 Bull. Soc. Académique Boulogne-sur-Mer, 1873, p. 94. 
