2 ME. E. T. NEWTON ON EEMAINS OF [Feb. 1 899, 



his species of PappicJithys^ discarding Leidy's names on the ground 

 that no diagnosis had been given, and retaining his own name of 

 Pajpjpichthys, concerning which he says ^ : — ' This genus differs from 

 the existing Amia in the presence of only one series of teeth instead 

 of several, on the bones about the mouth. The vertebral centra 

 possess a smaller antero-posterior diameter, and relatively greater 

 transverse diameter, in the anterior part of the column ; but the 

 value of these characters is not yet certainly understood.' In so 

 far as the dentition is concerned, this diagnosis would include Amia 

 also, for a single row of teeth on the maxillary, premaxillary, and 

 dentary bones is characteristic of both the fossil and living forms ; 

 the extra rows of teeth on the inner side of the lower jaw of A.mia 

 are not developed on the dentary element, but on supplementary 

 splenial bones. We now have evidence (PI. I, fig. 17 *) that similar 

 supplementary teeth-bearing bones existed in the fossil forms 

 described in the present paper. Cope calls attention to the fact 

 that the palatine bone of his P. plicatus ' exhibits a series of large 

 marginal teeth and numerous smaller ones within them, as in Amia 

 calva.' ^ 



The diagnosis of Pappichthys, therefore, is restricted to the 

 characters of the vertebrae, and these are practically what were 

 given by Leidy, whose name of Protamia must be used for these 

 fossil forms, if they are to be generically separated from the living 

 Amia, but it is by no means clear that they should be so separated. 



Prof. A. Andreae ^ has described some very similar fish-remains 

 from the Lower Miocene of Messel, Darmstadt, which he names 

 Amia Kehreri, preferring to assign the fish to this genus rather than 

 to adopt either of those proposed by Leidy and Cope, evidently 

 having doubts as to the difference of dentition, which Cope thought 

 existed, a supposition which led him to separate his fossil fishes from 

 the living Amia. 



Mr. A. Smith Woodward * gives full references to all the known 

 fossil forms which are nearly allied to Amia, and includes in this 

 genus some isolated vertebrae from the Upper Eocene of Hordwell, 

 Hampshire, which agree very closely with the American specimens, 

 and also with those now to be described. 



Some years ago my colleague, Mr. Clement Reid, obtained the frag- 

 mentary remains of a fish from the Bembridge Marls at Hamstead, 

 Isle of Wight, among which were vertebrae and other bones closely 

 resembling some of those referred to above from the Tertiary strata 

 of North America. In the hope that better material would be found, 

 these bones were allowed to remain unrecorded. More recently 

 Mr. G. W. Colenutt has found many portions of similar fishes not 

 only in Bembridge Beds, but also in the Osborne Series of King's 

 Quay, near E-yde, and has very courteously placed them in my hands 



1 Eep. U.S. Geol. Surv. Terr. vol. iii (1884) 4to, p. 56. 



2 Ibid. p. 69. 



^ Abh. Senckenb. naturf. Gesellsch. vol. xviii (1894) p. 359. 

 ^ Brit. Mus. Catal. Foss. Fishes, pt. iii (1895) p. 367. 



