434 CLASSIFICATION OF DEVONIAN FISHES 
that of Dzplopterus and Osteolepis, the endoskeleton presents a 
remarkable advance on that of any other Saurodipterine, in that 
both the centra and the neural arches of the vertebral column are 
thoroughly ossified. Excellent specimens of these vertebre are to 
be seen in the British Museum. 
The Saurodipterini and Glyptodipterini being thus separated 
from other Paleozoic fishes, as well-defined families, perfectly 
distinct from one another, though closely allied by the community 
of characters displayed in the number, structure and disposition, of 
their fins, the absence of branchiostegal rays and their replacement 
by jugular plates; we have next to consider what other families of 
fish, if any, should be ranged alongside of them, or in other words, 
what are the limits and what the importance of the larger group, 
formed by the association of these families. 
In the first place, I conceive there can be no doubt that the 
CTENODODIPTERINI, a family justly established by Professor Pander? 
SR 
SN 
SEAN . 
BSS 
Fig. 9. Restoration of Dzpferus (after Pander). 
for the reception of Dzpterus and its immediate allies, must take 
its place in close juxtaposition with the Saurodipterini and Glypto- 
dipterini, seeing that it possesses all those structural peculiarities 
which are common to these two families. In fact, as Hugh Miller? 
originally pointed out in successive notices, Dzpterus has the dorsal 
fins placed far back; acutely lobate pectorals and ventrals ;* no 
branchiostegal rays, but jugular plates instead of them; and a 
single anal. The caudal extremity of the body tapers off to a 
point, and has the lower lobe of the fin very much larger than the 
1 Under the name of Crenod¢plerinz. Sir Philip Egerton has, I think, given good reasons 
for the slight change I have adopted. de Alem, Geol. Survey, 1861, p. 55. 
2 See ‘Old Red Sandstone,” ‘‘ Footprints of the Creator,” and ‘‘ Sketch Book of Popular 
Geology.” It is much to be regretted that Professor Pander should have been wholly 
unacquainted with these works when he wrote his Monograph on the Ctenododipterinz, and 
that he has consequently inadvertently failed to do justice to the great merits of Hugh Miller, 
who made known almost the whole organization of Dzprerzs, and anticipated the most impor- 
tant part of Prof. Pander’s labours in this field. 
3 See Prof. Pander, 1. c. 
