1870. ] HANCOCK AND HOWSE—DORYPLERUS HOFFMANNI. 625 
body ; and the jaws do not appear to have borne teeth. The back- 
bone has a few more than thirty-joints, of which about seventeen 
belonged to the ventral vertebree ; but the number of the vertebree 
cannot be distinctly reckoned. 
“¢ Satisfactory information cannot be given respecting the pectoral 
fins. Behind the gill-covers a somewhat waved ribbon-shaped 
organ runs in a sloping direction backwards to the ventral margin, 
which perhaps might be the humerus ; and at its root one sees some 
bones which one is inclined to take for the roots of the pectoral rays. 
But this ribbon-shaped organ is provided with distinct parallel lon- 
gitudinal strie, and itself resembles a pectoral fin; and those bones 
we took for roots of the pectoral rays might be apophyses of the 
vertebral column displaced by pressure. 
“The little elliptical ventral fins are nearly behind the middle of 
the belly, and not in immediate connexion with other bones, and 
may perhaps, through pressure or dislocation, have been pushed 
backwards; but at any rate they are placed behind the pectorals. The 
anal fin itself is not to be seen; but the root-bones (fin-supports), 
which are present, show that it commenced close to or not far from 
the ventrals, and extended for a considerable distance towards the 
tail. 
«The dorsal commences a little before the middle of the back, 
quickly gets narrower towards the apex, and continues in a vertical 
direction, with pretty equal breadth, to the tip. It has in this ex- 
ample, on the hinder side at the base, a bow-shaped emargination, 
which, however, may not have been caused by tearing or injury, 
because the rays do not break off, but run in parallel curves to the 
root. The support-bones also show that the dorsal did not extend 
more behind than before, and that we have the dorsal fin perfect and 
complete before us. The existence of a second dorsal cannot be 
directly denied, because in the place where it should appear the 
fish becomes obscured by the stone, and there are no sharp lines; 
but occasionally one can see the outline of the back so clearly that 
one would certainly see bones if there had been a second dorsal; and 
we may therefore conclude that, in all probability, it was absent. 
«The caudal is forked; both lobes are equal, and are separated 
by the backbone. 
“Tt is all the more difficult to determine the family to which 
this fish belongs, as neither scales nor teeth are to be seen. The 
rhombical markings which the figure shows near the tail, and which 
one might take for scales, have no glistening surface, and appear more 
as fragments of ribs and spinous processes crossing each other. If 
they were really scales, the genus Dorypterus would then belong to 
the Ganoids, and stand near Dapedius. But the form, the situation 
of the fins, and the whole skeleton remind one very much of the 
recent genus Vomer.” 
Although Prof. Germar’s specimen was not perfect enough to 
enable him to describe it fully, yet in the foregoing description we 
find a sufficient number of characters to justify us in referring our 
specimens to this peculiar fish. Among these the position of the 
