Oe 
AND SUPPOSED EAR-BONES OF CTENODUS. _ 57 
as —s are not otolites, but ‘arene fungi, to which they 
have n the generic name x —_ which indicates 
that thes resemble, hardened fossil ‘amaeae Their chief 
arguments in favour of the “eure nature “of the fossils are 
the minute structure of some of the specimens, which resemble, 
to some extent, the structure of certain fungi ; and the fact that 
while fossil sua are easily destroyed in nitric acid, the 
they consider to be fungi. These fossil bodies are supposed 
Messrs. Hancock and Atthey to be fully dev veloped plants, pro- 
ducing spores, and related to the higher fungi. th 
have overlooked the fact that this “doubtful” (Berk.) production, 
which led them to take this view of these bodies is only a Myce- 
lium-tuber, the fructification of which is yet unknown.’ 
“Tn minute structure these fossils vary, and, as some of them 
ear to be entirely structureless, structure alone is not suffi- 
pa to a serge their being considered vegetable. Lily ae 
tot nitric acid on the fossil, my e 
that nitric acid does not visibly affect the forms of epee su 
otolites: while it decomposes teeth and other remains o ihe 
and repti 
into ies Bri ong n, it appears more probable that the Tosaincure are 
oto. ites Oo o- talber than hardened 
hear 8 5 deneriptiva of ~_ fossil are, to — henson 
' bodies are em does nok an ey) ¥ etable remains, 
ing 
to be said on both sides, we must, therefore, for the present con- 
sider the nature of these bodies as obscure ; they may be otolites 
of Ctenodus or other fish, or they may be fungi 
