274 
ACTINOFTERYGII. 
they approach the anal fin, and the vertical series here 
are bent forwards. Lewis Coll. 
P. 63. Another imperfect head and trunk, wanting caudal fin ; 
Hakel. Lewis Coll. 
P. 63 a. A smaller specimen, displaying the characteristic form of 
the dorsal and caudal fins ; Hakel. Lewis Coll. 
P. 4002. Imperfect fish wanting dorsal region, but displaying the 
caudal and anal fins, apparently the “ second specimen ” 
described as P. ventrcdis by J. W. Davis, loc. cit. p. 500 ; 
Hakel. The large pectoral fins are indicated, and the 
diminutive pelvic pair appears not far in advance of the 
anal. In the caudal region both the neural and haemal 
arches are shown to be firmly united by their laminar 
expansions; each spine exhibiting the lamina behind 
and in front, and this interlocking with the next lamina 
by a jagged suture. The external ornament of the scales 
consists only of fine pittings, and the ventral ridge-scales 
do not appear to have been serrated. The delicate 
squamation of the caudal region extends to the base of 
the anal fin for at least two-thirds of its length, being 
here finely subdivided and arranged in reflexed series as 
in no. P. 61. Lewis Coll. 
39231. Head and anterior portion of trunk; Hakel. There are 
distinct traces of the interdigitating laminar expansions 
on the neural and haemal arches. Tristram Coll. 
39232. Lower half of trunk with caudal fin, in counterpart; Hakel. 
In the pectoral fin there are impressions of basals to the 
number of 7 or 8. The caudal fin and parts of the anal 
are especially well preserved; the small scales extend 
quite to the base of the latter. Three of the haemal 
spines within the caudal fin exhibit a large triangular 
expansion. Tristram Coll. 
The following specimen is regarded by J. W. Davis as the type of 
a distinct species, which he names Palceobalistum ventralis (Trans. 
Roy. Dublin Soc. [2] vol. iii. 1887, p. 499, pi. xxiii.). It is described 
as differing from P. goedeli in the form of the body and the teeth 
(the latter being seen in no. P. 61 catalogued above, which Davis 
regards as likewise P. ventralis). The most reasonable explanation 
of the differences noted seems to be, that the undermentioned 
