Zitiel {loc. cit., 1887, p. 105) quotes it also amongst the Palseoniscidae. 
Locality and Horizon . — In the Newcastle beds (Upper Coal Measures), 
at Newcastle, New South Wales (Permian ?). 
Genas — CLEITHBOLEP1S, Egerlon , 1861. 
(Egerton, loc. cit., p. 3.) 
Obs . — There is another fish from the Hawkcsbury-Wianamatta beds, 
the systematic place of which is not quite settled. Sir P. Egerton had two 
specimens at his disposal, one being an original, a fragmentary specimen 
with head and part of body. Prom this Sir P. Egerton was inclined to 
compare the fish with the genus Tlatysomus, Ag. Of the other he had a 
photograph (see his Tab. I, Pig. 3), and was the same which I also figured 
(PI. XXIX, Pig. 8). About this specimen he wrote {loc. cit., p. 3) : — “ A 
photograph, however, of a second specimen, evidently of the same species, and 
found in the same locality, shows the posterior portion of the Pish , and 
here we find some striking discrepancies from the corresponding parts in the 
tPlatysomi. In the last-named genus the dorsal fm commences at the culmi- 
nating point of the dorsal ridge, and extends thence to the upper lobe of the 
caudal fm, the component rays diminishing very gradually in length from 
first to last. The anal fin is the exact counterpart of the dorsal fin. In Mr. 
Clarke’s photograph these fins do not occupy half that space, but commence 
much nearer to the tail, and decrease very rapidly in the length of the rays. 
In Llatysomus the dorsal fin contains from 80-100 fin-rays, whereas in the 
Australian fish it has only 30.* The caudal fin also shows very different 
characters in the two genera. Llalysomus has a very well marked hetero- 
cercal tail, whereas, as can be perceived in the very faint photographic record 
of this organ in the Australian specimen, no trace of such structure can lie 
detected.” 
It is then quite peculiar why, in spite of this negative evidence, Sir 
P. Egerton {loc. cit., p. 4) quotes it as related to Platysomus, and why Mr. 
Clarke and others also used to adduce it as evidence of the Permian acre of 
O 
the Ilavhesbury-Wianamatta beds. Quenstedt, in his “ Petrefaktenkunde” 
(p. 348), places this fish doubtfully with Platysomus. 
But if we examine the tail as far as it is possible in the drawing, we 
find that the tail cannot bo considered at all as heterocercal, but at the 
* I could count. 29. 
