TRIASSIC FISHES FROM SPITZBERGEN 
5 1 
a Coelacanthid from King’s Bay in Spitzbergen, found, according to the label, some¬ 
what below the Tertiary coal-bed, also seems, if this statement is correct, to be of 
Cretaceous age 1 ). 
From what has been said it would appear that, as far as we know at present, 
the Coelacanthids had obtained a considerably greater distribution in the Carboniferous 
than during the Devonian, and that they had also become much more common. They 
seem to have attained their greatest flourishing in the Triassic. They are also represented 
by a number of genera in the Jurassic, while in the Cretaceous they become more 
rare and finally disappear. 
Description of the Spitzbergen forms. 
Genus Wimania n. g. 
Svn. Leioderma Stensio, 1918. 
The genus in question is previously mentioned under the name of Leioderma in 
my description of Dictyonostus 1918 (Stensio, 1918 c, p. 121), but as it turned out later 
on that the name Leioderma was already used, I have suggested instead of it Wimania 
after Professor C. Wiman, my respected teacher and friend. 
The type species of the genus Wimania, W. sinuosa described below, is partly very 
incompletely known, as apart from the head there are present only certain parts of 
the shoulder-girdle and a number of scales. Under these circumstances it is of course 
very difficult to decide whether one or two other species, which are represented 
practically exclusively by scales and parts of the axial and fin skeleton, belong to the 
genus in question. As a criterion of relationship one would in this case have to rely 
merely on certain common features in the sculpture of the scales, but anyone who has 
studied the Coelacanthids will realize that this cannot afford sufficiently certain evidence 
for deciding this question. It appears too that although the two doubtful species in 
question agree with each other pretty well with regard to the sculpture of the scales, 
they differ fairly considerably with regard to the development of the lepidotrichs and 
it seems to be most probable that we have in them representatives of different genera. 
But, as it appears from the above, it is impossible to decide which species should in 
this case with most justice be assigned to the genus Wimania and so for the present 
I have provisionally retained both in this genus. 
On the other hand one cannot also quite help feeling that one of the two species 
mentioned, the one described below as Wimania? sp., might possibly really turn out 
to be identical with W. sinuosa, which it resembles, at least with regard to the sculpture 
of the scales. 
Under these circumstances it is evident that a definition of the genus in question 
ought for the present to be based exclusively on the type species. A summary of the 
most distinctive characters of the genus will therefore appear as follows: Fairly large 
q This fragment belongs to the Riksmuseum in Stockholm. 
