Again, however, the ashes of the dead have been disturbed, the history has been recast, and the old genealogy attempted to be restored. Sir P. G. Egerton, in a paper read before the Geological Society of London, on the 19th April, 1848, and a copy of which he did me the honor to transmit, has examined very minutely every organ and portion of the animal as delineated in the “Monograph,” and is satisfied that it is, indeed, still to be regarded as a genuine pterichthys. However, Sir Philip very cautiously adds,—“Having never seen a specimen of _pamphractus_, I should not be justified in expressing any positive opinion respecting this genus, but I cannot help thinking that it is founded on a specimen, showing the true dorsal arrangement of the lorication of the Pterichthys.” Accordingly, Mr. Miller, who supplies a considerable portion of the paper in question, affirms, with abundant confidence, that he has been able to penetrate the mystery of the error. “I have succeeded,” he says, “in tracing to its origin the _Pamphractus_ of Agassiz. The specimens which he figures could never have furnished the materials of his restoration—These materials he evidently derived from the print of a Pterichthys of the upper Old Red (showing the dorsal superficies of the creature), given by the Rev. Dr. Anderson of Newburgh, in his Essay on the Geology of Fifeshire (‘Quarterly Journal of Agriculture,’ Vol. XI, 1840), as that of a fossil beetle.” Now, with all submission, this hypothesis is wide of the fact. While Mr. Miller was inspecting, at Aberdeen, “the bona fide ichthyolite itself,” and which, as we shall immediately see, was not a Pterichthys, Agassiz had both the print and the real specimens lying before him. The impressions on the slab are ELEVEN in number, three of the “broad” and eight of the “narrow” species; and, comparing the one with the other, the print with the fossil, he records, “They have been figured VERY FAIRLY by Mr. Anderson, in his interesting Memoir on the Geology of Fifeshire.” “But,” adds Mr. Miller, “I have ascertained, by the examination of the greater number of specimens of this species yet found, in the general outline of the carapace, which was longer in proportion to its breadth than in the print, and not defined by such regular curves.” ... The print is a perfect transcript of the fossil, as if taken in a mold,—curves, projections, and tubercles all duly and “fairly” preserved, as in the original; and, with all the materials, and so many actual impressions before him, Agassiz hesitated not to change his views, and to feel assured that it was really a Pamphractus, not a Pterichthys, that he was examining. Farther, we have only to add, that in the Essay in the Quarterly Journal of Agriculture, it is not true that the print of a Pterichthys is there “given as that of a fossil beetle;” the higher patronymic had, ere the publication of the prize essay, been withdrawn; and the author, along with all others, states, he was waiting the