216 Prof. E. a. Lewis — Localities for Fossil Fish in the Lebanon. 



just before his return home from the Crusades, a stone was brought 

 him, says Joinville, "which was the most marvellous in the world, 

 for when a layer of it was lifted, there was found, between the two 

 pieces, the form of a fish. The fish was of stone, but lacked nothing 

 in form, eyes, bones, colour, or anything necessary to a living fish. 

 The king demanded a stone and found a tench within." 



Of course it is impossible to tell what species was shown the 

 King, and it may seem idle to hazard a guess ; but the specimen was 

 most probably from Hakel, since that was the locality first known ; 

 M. Maraldi mentioning it in a letter to the "Academie des Sciences" 

 of Paris, in 1703, and M. C Lebrun again in 1714, while neither 

 mentions Sahel Alma. Besides, the historian speaks of a stone com- 

 posed of layers which opened, a description applicable to most of 

 the specimens brought from Hakel, but rarely true of those from 

 Sahel Alma. In that case the specimen was most probably a Clupea, 

 since that is the genus found on the surface at Hakel ; and it might 

 verj' easily be called a tench by a casual observer. It may seem 

 foolish, and of course unscientific, to deal in speculations like these, 

 but one seems led to it when reading of fossil fish collected 625 

 years ago. 



M. de Blainville, so far as is known, was the first to attempt a 

 scientific determination of the Ijebanon fish, and he, in 1818, de- 

 scribed piupea brevissima and Clupea BeurarcU from Hakel. 



Agassiz, in his celebrated work, 1833-43, described Clupea lata, 

 Clupea minima, from Hakel, and Sphyrcena amici and Bhinellus 

 furcatus from Sahel Alma. He very singularly figures the Bhinellus, 

 vol. ii. tab. 58^, fig. 5, and gives fig. 6 as a fragment of the same 

 species, when it is, in reality, a Dercetis, a genus figured in the same 

 volume, tab. 66^, fig. 1 and 2, though the species may possibly be 

 different. The next Lebanon specimen described was by Sir Philip 

 Grey Egerton, Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc, 1845, vol. i. page 225, the 

 Cyclobatis oligodactylus from Hakel. 



Then Haeckel followed in 1849, adding the genus Fycnosterinx, 

 two species, and a new species of Clupea, the former from Sahel 

 Alma, and the latter from Hakel; then 0. G. Costa, "Descrizione 

 di alcuni Pesci fossili del Libano," 1855, added the genera Imogaster 

 and Omosoma, and described a Beryx. 



Finally, in 1866, appeared the valuable work of Pictet and 

 Humbert, above referred to, which figures and describes, or refers 

 to, 26 species from Sahel Alma, 21 from Hakel, and four of doubtful 

 origin; in all 51 species, if all be allowed, which is a matter of 

 doubt, since M. Pictet was in some uncertainty about the identity of 

 one or two species described by Costa, one described by Haeckel, and 

 two, at least, to which Agassiz referred only, without figuring and 

 describing. In these cases M. Pictet enumerates all the species 

 mentioned as distinct species, and describes his own examples under 

 difi'erent names. Examples of this will be given in another article. 



M. Lartet, in the work previously cited (page 109), adds a new 

 Clupea to the eight or nine previously described. I can but think 

 that these species will be reduced in number when a large collection 



