Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T04:50:36.589Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

IV.—Remarks on the Genus Megalichthys, Agassiz, with Description of a New Species

(PLATE V.)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 May 2009

Extract

There can be no doubt that the name Megalichthys was originally suggested to Agassiz by the gigantic teeth of the great round-scaled fish first brought into notice by the researches of Dr. Hibbert, in the quarries of Burdiehouse, though indeed some of its remains had long previously been figured by Ure in his “History of Rutherglen and East Kilbride.” Incontrovertible evidence of this may be found by referring to the Proceedings of the British Association for 1834, and to Dr. Hibbert's original memoir on the Burdiehouse Limestone published in the Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, vol. xiii. 1835. But with the remains of this enormous creature were also associated and confounded certain rhombic glistening scales, belonging really to a considerably smaller fish of a totally different genus, and when Agassiz, subsequently to the meeting of the British Association at Edinburgh in the year above quoted, found in the Museum at Leeds a head of this latter form, or at least of an allied species, he adopted it, by description and by figure, as the type of his Megalichthys Hibberti, relegating the other to the genus Holoptychius. This latter, the real “big fish,” is now known as Rhizodus Hibberti, the founder of the genus being Prof. Owen; and though it may be a matter of regret that it did not retain the name Megalichthys, the laws of zoological nomenclature do not admit of any alteration now.

Type
Original Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1884

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 115 note 1 Poissons Foss. vol. ii. pt. 2, pp. 8996, pl. 63, 63a, and 64.Google Scholar

page 116 note 1 British Pal. Foss. pp. 590–502.

page 116 note 2 Die Saurodipterinen, &c., des devonischen Systems, p. 5.

page 116 note 3 Dec. Geol. Survey, x. 1861, p. 12

page 116 note4 Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc. vol. xxii. 1866, pp. 596608.Google Scholar

page 116 note 5 North Staffordshire Nat. Field Club; Addresses and Papers, Hanley, 1875, p. 228.

page 116 note 6 Phil. Trans. 1849, pi. xlii. fig. 18.

page 116 note 7 Saurodipterinen, etc., pi. v. fig. 8.

page 116 note 8 Footprints of the Creator.

page 117 note 1 Pr. G. S. Glas. iii. 1868, 202–3.Google Scholar

page 117 note 2 Poiss. Foss. du vieux Gres rouge, 63.

page 118 note 1 Pander, op. cit. p. 68; Huxley, op. cit. p. 7

page 120 note 1 op. cit. p. 11.

page 120 note 2 op. cit. p. 2. fig. 2. On this subject see my memoir on Tristichopterus alatus, Trans. Roy. Soc. Edinb. vol. xxvii. (1875) p. 386.Google Scholar

page 121 note 1 Proc. Brit. Assoc. 1869 (Exeter), Trans, of Sections, p. 102. As regards other species of Megalieluhys, M. mnxMaris, Ag., was never described or figured; M. priscus, Ag., forn Orkney, was afterwards referred by Agassiz himself to polyphractus (i.e. Depterus); while M. Fischeri, Eichwald, is pronounced by Pander to be portion of the cranial shield of an Osteulepis.