TliK CCELACANTlIINr. 



13 



an iuter-apophysial bone. They are articulated, and appeared to be 

 divided at their apices. It is these little rays which I considered, at 

 first, to belong to the true caudal fin. I have explained above, in 

 speaking of the genus, the reasons which have led me to withdraw this 

 opinion, when I had the good fortune to discover a complete specimen 

 of the type in the collection of Lord Enniskillen. Thanks to this 

 discovery, I have been able to investigate the form of the vertebrse, 

 which I found very massive, like the rest of the vertebral column. It 

 has also led me to consider as a caudal fin all that great fin, borne by 

 interapophysial bones, above and below the extremity of the tail ; and, as 

 an anal, the simple fin which precedes them below. The anal is com- 

 posed of much more delicate rays, which, however, equally possess the 

 peculiarity of being bifurcated and articulated only at their ends. The 

 anterior ones are completely undivided. 



" The granular spots observable here and there on our specimens are 

 remains of the integument. I have seen fragments of scales only in a 

 portion of another species of Coelacanth, and from their structure I do 

 not doubt that our Cvelacatithus granulosus was covered with similar 

 scales. They are very delicate, and the concentric rings are very 

 readily distinguished in them. The raised granulations which ornament 

 their surface have originated the name C granulosus, which I have 

 given to this species. 



" It was found in the Magnesiam limestone of East Hickley, and the 

 originals of the plate are in M. Witham's collection. 



" The species the description of which I reserve for the future, are — 



" 1<^. Ccdacanthus Phillipsii, Agass. The caudal is more rounded 

 than in C. granulosus, its rays are more close set and jointed nearer to 

 their (proximal) ends. The apophyses of the caudal vertebrce are very 

 long and delicate. The scales are large, and rounded posteriorly. From 

 the Carboniferous rocks of Halifax. 



" 2^. Ccelacanthus minor, Agass. A very small species, remark- 

 able for its very short inter-apophysial bones. The joints of the rays, 

 properly so called, are longer than wide. The whole caudal is scarcely 

 more than an inch long. From the Muschelkalk of Luueville. 



" 3^. Ccelacanthus gracilis, Agass. A species of unknown origin, 

 distinguished by its elongated form ; the pedicle of the tail, in particular, 

 tapers evenly [est tout d'une venue'], and its rays are less close set than 

 in the other species. 



4°. Ccelacanthus lepturiis, Agass. From the coal of Leeds. This 

 species is still smaller than C. minor ; its scales have rugose surfaces. 



" 5^. Ccelacanthus Munstcri, Agass. A beautiful species from the 

 coal of Lebach, discovered by Lord Enniskillen, and characterized by 

 its heavy form. It is in this species that I first saw the conical and 

 hooked teeth of the genus Ccelacanthus.'''' 



The ascription of ossified vertebras to Ccelacanthus is certainly 

 erroneous, and in the Preliminary Essay" (1. c. p. 16), I have 

 already given the reasons which lead me to demur to Professor 

 Agassiz's views regarding the systematic position and affinities of 

 the Coelacanths. Furthermore I have shown that " Ccelacanthus'"' 

 Munsteri is not a Ccelacanthus-, and, consequently, that so far 

 as the arguments in favour of an essential difference between the 

 dentition of Undina and Ccelacanthus are based upon the dentition 

 of that fish, they are untenable. 



In Professor King's " Monograph of the Permian Fossils/' 



