12 
ACTINOPIEKYGII. 
1837 44. Osmeroides lewesiemis , L. Agassiz, Poiss. Foss. vol. v. pt. i- 
p. 14, pt. ii. p. 105. pi. lx A. tigs. 1, 2, 5-7 ( non figs. 3, 4), pi. lx®- 
1838. Osmeroides mantel/ii, ft. A. Mantell, Wonders Geol. vol. i. p. 307, 
fig. 1. 
(?) 1878. Osmeroides lewesiensis, A. Fritsch, Rept. u. Fi 
,,, 1 ^ ld ;; form - ?■ 32 > p 1 - vii - 6, e, pi. viii. fig. i. 
Osmeroides lewesiensis, G. C. Laube, Denksehr. k. Akad. Wh*-, 
matk.-naturw. Cl. vol. 1. p. 292, pi. i. figs. 2, 3, & woodc. 
1888. Osmeroides levesimsis, A. S. Woodward, Proc. Geol. Assoc, 
vol. X. p. 322. 
1895. Osmeroides lewesiensis, A. S. Woodward, Proc. Zool. Soc. 1894, 
P- 656, pi. xlii. 
Type. Imperfect fish ; British Museum. 
The type species, attaining a length of about 0-45. Form and 
proportions not definitely known, but length of head with opercular 
apparatus contained nearly three times in the length of the trunk 
from the pectoral arch to the base of the caudal fin. Length of 
cranium somewhat exceeding twice its maximum width at the 
occiput , hones of the hinder half of the cranial roof, cheek-plats 9 ’ 
opercular bones, and upper branchiostegal rays ornamented with 
coarse radiating rug®. Rays of each pelvic fin not less than J 1 > n 
number; the small anal nearer to the caudal than to the pel flC 
pair. Exposed area of scales narrow and deep, usually smooth, 
sometimes ornamented with very fine closely-arranged radiating 
lines of tubercles. 
The principal features of the collection from the English Cbal 
enumerated below are described in the Proc. Zool. Soc. 1894 (1893 
pp. (>o6-0o9, pi. xlii., and include all the more important oste< 
B ica characters of the genus. The lack of more precise inforinati® 
concerning the proportions of the fish and its fins, however, reiidoi 
it impossible to determine at present whether the fragmental 
. Y me usu aria its Hus, 
It impossible to determioe at present whether the fragment* 
specimens of Osmeroides from the Turoniau and Senonian 
Bohemia, described by Fritsch and Laube (he. cit), truly beloi 
to t he same species. In any case, Fritsch’s outline-restoration 
Mmerotdes lewesiensis, Ag.,” is much too slender and has too sms 
a head tor this fish, while the anal fin is not sufficiently remol 
s shown by the English fossils, the cranial osteology differs mm 
m e tentative restorations both of Fritsch and Laube. 
m r' " l ~ ■ ° C ' '^ uro "' an und Senonian : Sussex and Surrt 
(.) luronian and Senonian : Bohemia. 
\ pt specimen, comprising head and abdominal region, figui e( ^ 
^ " rta,Ss * z ’ tow. cit. pi. lx h. figs. 1, 5; Lewes. 
Mantell Coll- 
