judgment of the highest and most competent authority from the blue lake of Neufchâtel. And thither also, it would now appear, that other inquiries had been transmitted respecting the organisms of Dura Den, to be famed by modern, as it had already been by ancient, genealogical claims. We suspect, at least, it is of “the bona fide ichthyolite itself” that M. Agassiz, in the “Monograph,” speaks in the following extract:—“Dr. Fleming m’a communiqué le dessin d’une pétrifaction recueillie par lui à Dura Den, qui resemble beaucoup, quant à la forme du Pamphractus hydrophilus. La tête est courte, arrondie, large, presque en forme de croissant, le corps est allongé, formant avec la tête un ovale qui se termine en pointe en arrière. Les pectorales sont grêles, courbées et aussi longues que le corps. L’articulation de la tête avec le corps est très-nettement marquée, d’une manière qu’a la forme de la carapace près, qui est beaucoup plus pointue, on croirait voir un Pamphractus. Mais ce qui distingue surtout ce fossile (à en juger du moins d’après le dessin qui n’est, à vrai dire, qu’une esquisse) c’est qu’il n’y a pas de plaques separées, et que toute la surface de sa carapace ne montre qu’une granulation uniforme et continue, si toutefois la délinéation des plaques n’a pas été omise par le dessinateur. Nous aurions donc dans ce fossile un genre nouveau de cephalaspide, caractérisé par la forme de sa tête et par sa carapace uniforme. Quoi qu’il en soit, j’attends de plus amples informations sur ce sujet, avant de préciser davantage les caractères de ce type, et je me borne à reproduire les contours de ce dessin, Tab. 31, fig. 6, afin de fixer d’une manière plus particulière l’attention sur ce fossile.” Now, making every allowance for the imperfection of the sketch of Dr. Fleming, (qu’une esquisse), and which had not the aggravation of being a “print,” only see how many marvels have been successively evolved out of “the _bona fide_ ichthyolite itself:”—it is not a Pamphractus, though very much resembling it in form—it is not a Pterichthys, of which alliance there is not a hint even dropped by Agassiz, though its character as a _Pterichthys_ Mr. Miller “found very obvious;” but “we have in that fossil a new kind (genre) of cephalaspis, characterized by the form of its head, and by its uniform carapace,” all which characters have been overlooked in “the pleasure of examining the _bona fide_ ichthyolite itself—one of the specimens of Dura Den, and apparently one of the more entire.” Has this creature undergone a still further metamorphosis, numerous as those of the Pterichthys itself? Or what specimen is it which now rejoices in the appellation of _Homothorax Flemingii_, also again challenged or suspected at least by Sir P. Egerton, not to be its true designation! But, _quocunque nomine gaudeat_, the cabinet of science is enriched by the addition of a new and remarkable fossil fish.