42 BRITISH FOSSILS. 



the ornamentation of its scales, which is disposed in converging 

 ridges, not in tubercles ; by the ridged ornamentation of the 

 rami of the mandible and of the jugular bones ; and by the ab- 

 sence of spines upon the fin-rays of the median fins. 



In Macropoma, on the other hand, the scale ornament is made up 

 of distinct tubercles ; the jugular bones and mandibular rami are 

 covered with tubercles, not with ridges ; there are single or double 

 rows of stout spines upon the anterior edges of the fin-rays of the 

 median fins, which are inarticulated through the greater part 

 of their length. 



In Holophagus the scale ornament is in ridges, like that of 

 Ccelacanthus. There are small spines, sometimes in more than 

 two rows, upon the fin rays of the anterior dorsal and both lobes 

 of the caudal fins ; but I see none upon the second dorsal or upon 

 the anal. The median fin-rays are articulated through more than 

 half their length. 



Of the two species of Ccelacanthus ( = Undina) described by 

 Count Munster, C. Kohleri is distinguished by the ornamentation 

 of its scales " resembling flies' eggs," and by the rows of small 

 spines upon the fin rays of the first dorsal and caudal fins. 



The beautiful specimen of this species, the property of the 

 Earl of Enniskillen, which is before me, shows the first and second 

 dorsal fins, the pectorals, and the ventrals ; the tail is wanting. 

 The fin-rays of the anterior dorsal are spinous, and the spines 

 are set in a double row along the anterior edges of the fin-rays, 

 much as in Macropoma, and unlike Holophagus. The fin-rays 

 remain undivided much further from their base than in Holo- 

 phagus, and in this respect, also, more resemble Macropoma. 



The sculpture has disappeared from the cranial bones, and the 

 inner sides of the two jugular bones are exposed, so that nothing 

 can be said upon this point. The scales are represented by mere 

 bony films. 



The head is altogether similar in form to that of Macropoma. 

 There is a well ossified parasphenoid. The stylohyal, the oper- 

 culum, the pectoral arch, and the lower jaw, so far as they are 

 preserved, are very like those of Macropoma. 



The only teeth which are visible are small and granular, and re- 

 semble those of the pterygo-suspensorial and parasphenoid bones 

 in Macropoma. The absence of pointed teeth is a circumstance 

 of merely negative import, to which I am not disposed to attach 

 any importance. 



Of Ccelacanthus (Undina?) striolaris I have seen no specimen, 

 but while Minister's figures show that, in all important respects, it 

 resembled C. Kohleri — he assigns to it scales with a striated 

 ornamentation, and fin-rays without spinous ornamentation. 

 Putting aside the teeth (the absence of sharp teeth in Undina 

 and of granular teeth in Ccelacanthus not being proved), I see 

 no character by which this species is separable from Ccelacanthus, 

 while C. Kohleri appears to be equally indistinguishable from 

 Macropoma. 



