Fossil Fishes from the Diamond-hearing Pipes of Kimherley. 401 
The first of the two which I name Disichthys kimherley ensis is a small 
palaeoniscid, which at first sight one might be inclined to refer to 
Cycloptychius or Bhadinichthys, but on close examination it is found to 
differ too greatly to be even provisionally placed in either. 
The type measures about 120 mm. in length, and the greatest depth of 
the body is 25 mm. The dorsal fin is placed well back, commencing 
at 62 mm. from the snout, and the anal commences only a short distance 
further back, viz., 64 mm. from the snout. 
A second imperfect specimen is of larger size, measuring probably 
135 mm. in length and a body depth of 30 mm. 
The skull is palaeoniscid, with the suspensorium vertical and the gape 
small. The operculum is almost square. In both maxilla and mandible 
the teeth are small, uniform and pointed. 
The dorsal fin is situated well back and wholly behind the middle 
plane. It has about 26 rays, of which the first five are short, gradually 
lengthening to the sixth. All are jointed and undivided even at their tips. 
The pectoral fin is not well preserved in any specimen, but the rays are 
certainly undivided. 
The pelvic fin has 18 undivided rays. 
The anal fin much resembles the dorsal. It has about 20 undivided 
rays. 
The caudal fin is imperfectly preserved, but pretty certainly it is not 
bifurcated, the axis of the body being directly continuous into the axis of 
the tail as in Holurus. The lower side of the tail axis has a series of 
undivided rays. 
The scales are of moderate size, but thin and rounded as in 
Cycloptychius. They are feebly ornamented with numerous small ridges 
running backwards. 
Of known forms Disichthys comes nearest to Holurus. 
Peleichthys kimbeeleyensis, g. et sp. n. 
(Plate XXII.) 
This new genus and species is founded on a single specimen on a slab 
of sandstone from the De Beers Mine tip very similar in texture to that 
in which Disichthys was met with. Unfortunately this unique specimen 
is in a rather unsatisfactory condition. The head and neck are repre- 
sented by only a few impressions, and the fins and tail are not very well 
preserved. 
Though probably belonging to the same group as Disichthys, it cannot, I 
think, be placed in that genus. 
