Frof. Traquair — On Phaneropleuron. 271 



X. — Stjpplementaky Note on Phaneropleuron (Huxley), and 



Ubonemus (Agass.). 



By Prof. E. H. Traquaik, M.D. 



SINCE the publication of my paper, entitled " Notes on the Genus 

 Phaneropleuron, with a Description of a New Species from the 

 Carboniferous Formation," in the Geological Magazine for Decem- 

 ber, 1871, pp. 529-535, Sir Philip Egerton has kindly sent me for 

 comparison a specimen in his collection of the Burdiehouse fish, 

 named by Agassiz Uronemus lohatus, at the same time directing my 

 attention to the resemblance which it bore to the fish which in the 

 paper referred to I had described and figured as Phaneropleuron 

 elegans. I am also indebted to the Earl of Enniskillen for an oppor- 

 tunity of examining another specimen of the same fish. 



From these specimens it is evident that my Phaneropleuron elegans 

 is identical with Uronemus lohatus of Agassiz. Uronemus lohatus was 

 catalogued by Agassiz ^ as one of his family of Coelacanths, but was 

 not figured, and can hardly be said to have been described by him, 

 as he gave no detail concerning it. I may therefore quote his entire 

 description in full. " Le genre Uronemus se distingue par sa longue 

 dorsale, qui commence presque a la nuque, et se continue sans inter- 

 ruption jusqu' a la caudale ; I'anale n'est pas non plus separee de la 

 caudale. Ce genre ne renferme que de petits poissons de I'epoque 

 bouillere. J'en connais assez bien un espece du calcaire de Burdie- 

 house a laquelle j'ai donne le nom de Uronemus lohatus.'"'^ 



In his well-known Essay on the Classification of the Devonian 

 fishes, Professor Huxley remarks that he had not seen Uronemus, 

 and leaves it an open question whether or not it belongs to the 

 family of Ccelacanthini as limited and defined by him, seeing that 

 no details concerning it were given by Agassiz.^ It is now, however, 

 evident, from the specimens which I have described, that Uronemus is 

 not a Coelacanth, in the present acceptation of the term, but is a 

 member of the family Phaneropleurini, closely allied to it, if not 

 generically identical with the Phaneropleuron of Dura Den. Though, 

 with the material at my disposal, I considered myself justified in 

 describing the fish in question as a second species of Phaneropleuron, 

 yet I must own that the Burdiehouse specimens are sufficiently im- 

 perfect as to detail of head, and as to evidence of a separate anal fin, 

 as to render it very possible that better examples may subsequently 

 demonstrate decided generic distinctions between them and the Dura 

 Den fish. If, indeed, Agassiz be right in stating that the anal fin is 

 continuous with the caudal, the distinction is sufficiently evident, 

 but on this point I have never felt sufficiently satisfied. 



In these circumstances I must consider it better that the Dura Den 

 and Burdiehouse fishes should remain in the mean time under the 

 names originally bestowed on them, and am therefore ready to 

 withdraw the name of Phaneropleuron elegans, which I had given 

 to the latter. 



1 Poissons Fossiles, vol. ii., pt. ii., p. 180. 



2 Op. cit., p. 178. 



3 Decades Geol. Survey X., p. 20. 



