12 
-VCTIXOPIEKYGII. 
1837-44. Osmeroides lewesiemis, L. Agassiz, Poiss. Foss. vol. v. pt. i. 
p. 14, pt. ii. p. 105, pi. 1x6. figs. 1, 2, 5-7 (non figs. 3, 4), pi. Ixc. 
1838. Osmeroides mcmtellU, G. A. Mantell, Wonders Geol. vol. i. p. 307, 
fig. 1. 
(?) 1878. Osmeroides lewesiensis, A. Fritscli, Kept. u. Fische bobm. 
Kreideform. p. 32, pi. vii. figs, o, 6, pi. viii. fig. 1. 
(?) 1885. Osmeroides lewesiensis, G. C. Laiibe, Denkscbr. k. Akad. Wiss., 
matli.-naturw. Cl. vol. 1. p. 292, pi. i. figs. 2, 3, & woodc. 
1888. Osmeroides levesiensis, A. S. Woodward, Proc. Geol. Assoc. 
Yol. 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; bones of the hinder half of the cranial roof, cheek-plates, 
opercular bones, and upper branchiostegal rays ornamented with 
coarse radiating rugae. Bays of each pelvic fin not less than 11 in 
number; the small anal nearer to the caudal than to the pelvic 
pair. Exposed area of scales narrow and deep, usually smooth, 
sometimes ornamented with verj^ fine closely-arranged radiating 
lines of tubercles. 
The principal features of the collection from the English Chalk 
enumerated below are described in the Proc. Zool. Soc. 1894 (1895), 
pp. 656-659, pi. xlii., and include all the more important osteo- 
logical characters of the genus. The lack of more precise information 
concerning the proportions of the fish and its fins, however, renders 
it impossible to determine at present whether the fragmentaiy 
specimens of Osmeroides from the Turonian and Senonian of 
Bohemia, described by Fritsch and Laube (loe. cit.), truly belong 
to the same species. In any case, Fritsch’s outline-restoration of 
“ Osmeroides leiuesiends, Ag.,” is much too slender and has too small 
a head for this fish, while the anal fin is not sufiiciently remote. 
As shown by the English fossils, the cranial osteology differs much 
from the tentative restorations both of Fritsch and Laube. 
Form. Loc. Turonian and Senonian : Sussex and Surrey. 
(?) Turonian and Senonian : Bohemia. 
4294. Type specimen, comprising head and abdominal region, figured 
bj’ Agassiz, tom. cit. pi. lx h. figs. 1,5; Lewes. 
Mantell Coll. 
