122 PKOCEEDINGS OF THE GEOLOGICAL SOCIETY. [May 18, 



The abbreviation " Brit, rept." would read, as it now stands, 

 " British reptile ;" but I do not believe this is intended, although 

 perhaps, in reference to the first notion, that these fossils were 

 remains of Turtles, it might tend to mislead. I rather think 

 its signification is " Brit. Assoc. Rept." although the words are 

 awkwardly transposed, and " Association " altogether omitted. 

 The generic name Pterichthys was given to these fossils, not 

 by Miller, but by Agassiz, on the 23rd of September 1840, 

 as is shown at page 99 of the Report of the Meeting of the 

 British Association at Glasgow in that year. I should not feel 

 justified in entering at greater length into this controversy, as the 

 rival claimants are fortunately both living, and fully able to fight 

 their own battles ; I may, however, be permitted to state that, 

 having read both sides of the question with great care, my own im- 

 pression is that Prof. Eichwald 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 Pterichthys of Agassiz, and hence, dis- 

 carding the majority, namely Asterolepis proper, assigns this name 

 to the minority, to the exclusion of the Agassizian name. In the 

 mean time Prof. Agassiz, then engaged upon his ' Poissons Fossiles 

 du Vieux Gres Rouge,' received, through Prof. Bronn, from Eichwald 

 himself, specimens of his Asterolepis, which had no reference to 

 Pterichthys, but were identical with the genus Chelonichthys, esta- 

 blished 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 relinqxiished his own 

 name, Chelonichthys, and adopted Asterolepis of Eichwald. If now 

 it is sought to supersede Pterichthys of Agassiz by Asterolepis of 

 Eichwald, it is surely just that the term Chelonichthys should be re- 

 tained for Eichwald's rejectamenta, rather than Homosteus of Asmus, 

 a name of much later date than that of Agassiz. I trust, however, 

 that this renewed attempt to overthrow the accepted nomenclature 

 of these genera may not succeed, but that the name Pterichthys, 

 sanctioned by the use of eighteen years, may be universally retained, 

 associated as it is in the first-named species with the name of that 

 remarkable man, the author of the ' Old Red Sandstone.' 



I proceed to offer a few remarks on the additions made to the 

 Piscine Fauna of the Devonian age, in his ' British Palaeozoic Fossils,' 

 by Prof. M'Coy. In so doing I must disclaim any desire to criticise 

 censoriously the labours of one who has worked so assiduously in so 

 many branches of Palaeontology, and whose only fault (if fault it be) 

 is the over-ambitious scope of his investigations. Although some 

 years have elapsed since Prof. M'Coy first indicated, in the ' Annals 

 of Natural History,' these additions to the Devonian Fauna, it was 

 not until last year that I had an opportunity of examining the ori- 

 ginal specimens deposited in the Woodwardian Museum at Cam- 

 bridge. The following remarks are the result of that examination 

 combined with a previous acquaintance with all the important col- 

 lections of these ichthyolites both in this country and in Scotland : — 



