﻿SEMIONOTIDJE. 
  133 
  

  

  though 
  allowance 
  must 
  be 
  made 
  for 
  the 
  fact 
  that 
  this 
  sometimes 
  

   deepens 
  as 
  the 
  individual 
  becomes 
  aged. 
  On 
  the 
  whole, 
  the 
  most 
  

   satisfactory 
  classification 
  of 
  the 
  species 
  represented 
  in 
  the 
  Collection 
  

   appears 
  to 
  be 
  as 
  follows 
  : 
  — 
  

  

  I. 
  Scales 
  smooth 
  on 
  flanks. 
  

  

  (a) 
  Marginal 
  teeth 
  bicuspid. 
  

  

  Ornament 
  very 
  coarse, 
  often 
  rugae 
  ; 
  scales 
  

  

  finely 
  serrated 
  • 
  politus 
  (p. 
  133). 
  

  

  Variety 
  with 
  more 
  closely 
  pectinated 
  

  

  scales 
  radiatus 
  (p. 
  137). 
  

  

  Ornament 
  coarse, 
  few 
  or 
  no 
  rugae 
  ; 
  scales 
  

  

  not 
  serrated 
  orbis 
  (p. 
  137). 
  

  

  Small 
  feebly 
  ornamented 
  variety 
  of 
  the 
  

  

  same 
  dorsalis 
  (p. 
  138) 
  

  

  Ornament 
  fine 
  and 
  sparse 
  ; 
  scales 
  not 
  

  

  serrated 
  , 
  colei 
  (p. 
  140). 
  

  

  [b) 
  Marginal 
  teeth 
  unicuspid. 
  

  

  Ornament 
  coarse, 
  sometimes 
  rugae 
  ; 
  scales 
  

  

  serrated 
  punctatus 
  (p. 
  142). 
  

  

  More 
  elongated 
  species, 
  with 
  similar 
  

  

  ornament 
  but 
  more 
  slender 
  teeth 
  ; 
  

  

  scales 
  not 
  serrated 
  < 
  . 
  . 
  . 
  . 
  pholidotus 
  (p. 
  145). 
  

  

  Still 
  more 
  elongated 
  species, 
  similarly 
  

  

  ornamented 
  ; 
  flank-scales 
  scarcely 
  

  

  deeper 
  than 
  broad, 
  not 
  serrated. 
  . 
  . 
  . 
  ccelatus 
  (p. 
  147). 
  

  

  II. 
  Scales 
  all 
  tuberculated. 
  

  

  Trunk 
  about 
  as 
  deep 
  as 
  long, 
  four-and-a- 
  

   half 
  times 
  as 
  deep 
  as 
  the 
  caudal 
  pedicle 
  ; 
  

   teeth 
  bicuspid 
  ; 
  scales 
  serrated 
  granulatus 
  (p. 
  148). 
  

  

  Equally 
  deep 
  trunk 
  with 
  more 
  slender 
  

  

  caudal 
  pedicle 
  magnevillei 
  (p. 
  151). 
  

  

  Dapedius 
  politus, 
  Leach. 
  

  

  1822. 
  Dapedium 
  politum, 
  Leach, 
  Trans. 
  Geol. 
  Soc. 
  [2] 
  vol. 
  i. 
  p. 
  45, 
  

  

  pi. 
  vi. 
  figs. 
  1-4. 
  

   1832. 
  Dapedium 
  politum, 
  L. 
  Agassiz, 
  Neues 
  Jahrb. 
  p. 
  148. 
  

   1835-36. 
  Dapedius 
  politus, 
  L. 
  Agassiz, 
  Poiss. 
  Foss. 
  vol. 
  ii. 
  pt. 
  i. 
  p. 
  185, 
  

  

  pi. 
  xxv. 
  fig. 
  1. 
  

   1835-44. 
  Tetragonolepis 
  confluens, 
  L. 
  Agassiz, 
  ibid. 
  p. 
  199, 
  pi. 
  xxiii. 
  a. 
  

  

  fig. 
  1. 
  [Head 
  ; 
  British 
  Museum.] 
  

   1835-43. 
  Tetragonolepis 
  speciosus, 
  L. 
  Agassiz, 
  ibid. 
  p. 
  199, 
  pi. 
  xxiii. 
  b. 
  

  

  [Nearly 
  complete 
  fish 
  ; 
  British 
  Museum.] 
  

   1836-44. 
  Tetragonolepis 
  leiosomus, 
  L. 
  Agassiz, 
  ibid. 
  p. 
  202, 
  pi. 
  xxiii. 
  a. 
  

  

  fig. 
  3. 
  [Immature 
  fish 
  ; 
  British 
  Museum.] 
  

   1852. 
  Dapedius 
  politus, 
  F. 
  A. 
  Quenstedt, 
  Handb. 
  Petrefakt. 
  p. 
  202. 
  

   1854. 
  Dapedius 
  politus, 
  J. 
  Morris, 
  Catal. 
  Brit. 
  Foss. 
  p. 
  324. 
  

  

  