The caudal fins are preserved on K. U. nos. 786F, 787F, and have a total of 24 lepidotrichia, 12 above and 12 below. These are jointed for the distal half or two-thirds, and are up to 16.0 mm. in length. In specimen no. 787F the supplementary caudal fin has at least seven lepidotrichia, the longest of which is 11.0 mm. but incomplete. Anterior lepidotrichia appear unjointed but the posterior ones are jointed for the distal two-thirds (?) (these are broken off). The supplementary caudal fin is approximately 1.5 mm. long and 8.0 mm. or more wide. The supplementary caudal fin on K. U. no. 786F described by Hibbard (1933:281) could not be observed; this part of the caudal fin is missing. _Squamation_ In the suite of specimens isolated scales are numerous, but patches of scales are rare. Only two specimens (K. U. nos. 786F, 787F) are complete enough for scale counts, but preservation permits only partial counts. In general the scales resemble those of _Rhabdoderma elegans_ (Newberry). The scales are oval. The exposed posterior part of each bears posteriorly converging ridges; the anterior part is widest and shows a fine fibrillar structure. There are at least six scale-rows on either side of the lateral line. Lateral line scales show no pores, and except for slight irregularities in the orientation and length of the posterior ridges, closely resemble the others. Central ridges on the lateral line scales are shorter and tend to diverge from the center of the impression of the canal. The lateral line canal shows only as the impression of a continuous canal 0.7 mm. in diameter. Preservation is poorest in scales along the line of the neural and haemal arches; therefore lateral line scales are rarely preserved. Isolated scales are of two types: those on which the posterior ridges converge sharply and form the gothic arch configuration mentioned by Hibbard (1933:282), and those which do not. Both types of scales can be present on one fish, as shown by specimen no. 788. This is not apparent on nos. 786F and 787F; all of the scales on these specimens appear to be much alike. Both Moy-Thomas (1937:385) and Schaeffer (1952:51, 52) have remarked on the variation of the scales on different parts of the same fish. Because the number of ridges and amount of convergence of the ridges is not related to size of the scale, it is concluded that these characters are not of taxonomic significance. The strong resemblance of the scales of the Garnett specimens to those of _Rhabdoderma elegans_ (Newberry) caused Moy-Thomas (1937:399) to add Hibbard's two species to the synonymy of _R. elegans_. But at that time only the scales could be adequately described. If the shape of the scale and the number and pattern of ridges can vary with age, size and shape of the scale, it follows that assignment of isolated scales to a species should not be attempted. Assignment to genus should be made only with caution.