Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T03:53:30.294Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

IX.—Notes on the Nomenclature of the Fishes of the Old Red Sandstone of Great Britain

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 May 2009

Extract

The nomenclature of the fishes of the Old Red Sandstone of Great Britain, with the exception of the Cephalaspidæ, revised some years ago by Professor Lankester, is at present in a very unsatisfactory state. A vary large number of the species named by Agassiz, as well as by McCoy, were undoubtedly founded upon deceptive characters, due partly to different modes of preservation in different rocks, partly also to those apparent variations in external form, which are inevitable in such ancient fossil fishes devoid of a fully ossified internal framework, without which the original outline cannot be expected to be constantly preserved. In specimens from one locality the external ganoid surface of the scales may be well shown, in those from another it may be constantly hidden or obscured, while the proportional measurements in the very same species may vary infinitely, by the fish being lengthened out, or shortened up by changes, which have occurred after death or during the consolidation of the enclosing rock. These and kindred sources of fallacy can only be guarded against by long experience in deciphering such remains, coupled with the examination of an immense number of specimens.

Type
Original Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1888

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 507 note 1 Phil. Trans. 1883, p. 273.Google Scholar

page 508 note 2 “Ueber einen Pterichthys von Gerolstein,” Zeitschr. deutsch. geol. Gesellsch. 1877, p. 754.Google Scholar

page 508 note 2 “Zur Kenntniss der Gattung Bothriolepis, Eichw.,” Trans. Imp. Min. Soc. St. Petersburg. 1879.

page 508 note 2 Handbuch der Palæontologie,” vol. iii. pt. 1, pp. 153157.Google Scholar

page 509 note 1 Lethæa Rossica, tab. 56, fig. 3.

page 509 note 2 Ueber Bothriolepis Panderi, Lahusen, Bull. Imp. Mosc. vol. 55, pt. 2 (1880) pp. 169179.Google Scholar

page 513 note 1 Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc. 1864, p. 419.Google Scholar

page 513 note 2 Trans. Edinb. Geol. Soc. vol. i. p. 289.Google Scholar

page 516 note 1 Pal. Foss. p. 587.Google Scholar