No. 444.] PTERASPIDJZ AND CEP HA LA SPIDA£. 833 



confounded, and to Kner's belief that Scaphaspis was the shell 

 of Sepia officinalis, Kunth adds " so schienen mir diese Ansichten 

 in verein mit unserem vorliegenden Stiicks mir zu beweisen class 

 wir es mit einer Crustacean Abtheilung von ganz eigentluimlichcr 

 Schalstructur zu thun haben. Denn jeden tails giebt es weder 

 einen Fisch noch eine Sepien Schulpe, die cine ahnliche Structur 

 wie die Schilder zeigte ; wohl aber ist die Organization des gan- 

 zen Stuckes beweisend fur Crustaceen Character" (p. 6). 



Both Schmidt ('73, p. 33c) and von Alth (p. 47) agree with 

 Kunth that Scaphaspis is the ventral shield of Pteraspis, but 

 they deny that any of the remains described as Pteraspis, Cya- 

 thaspis or Scaphaspis arc crustaceans, although no valid reasons 

 are given for doing so. 



Huxley ('58, p. 277) in reply to Agassiz, who had remarked 

 on the singular resemblance between the shell of C. lloydii and 

 that of crustaceans, and to Roemer's and Kunth's opinion 

 that Pteraspis was a crustacean, seems to have closed the dis- 

 cussion for the time with his oft quoted statement that "No one 

 can, I think, hesitate in placing Pteraspis among Fishes. So far 



lutely no parallel in any other division of the animal kingdom. 



which it could be for a moment confounded." 



Roemer accepts these statements apparently because they 

 came from Huxley, although he does not make an unconditional 

 surrender of his opinion, for he says " Allerdings manche Anal- 

 ogic der aiisseren Form mit Crustacean-Formen dar bieten 

 wurde." 



In 1855, R. W. Banks in his paper on the Uownton Sand- 

 stones, after commenting on the association in these beds of 

 Liugitla cornea, Ptervgotus and Pteraspis ( Cvathaspis), made 

 the following observation, p. 98, " On the under side of the 

 sharp projections before referred to (on either side of the 



