Wei

SARA Na
oar eS :
WAR WAL

MAN, vib ‘
‘Mah Mosk

nn iephet
5 thee dis CHAE b
Nae Wie
1 pth

a

Me rag cy

eae
Bas ie AMI TA
a ty 4 ha anor vee
Perey Nolen:

WA Oh 7

“aye BD 4
Tmt

Pa eae ea | aOR WAN eet Cs A tell eine ce

ADVERTISEMENT.

[Monograph XIV.]

The publications of the United States Geological Survey are issued in accordance with the statute
approved March 3, 1879, which declares that—

“The publications of the Geological Survey shall consist of the annual report of operations, geo-
logical and economic maps illustrating the resources and classification of the lands, and reports upou
general and economic geology and paleontology. The annual report of operations of the Geological
Survey shall accompany the annual report of the Secretary of the Interior. All special memoirs and
reports of said Survey shall be issued in uniform quarto series if deemed necessary by the Director, but
otherwise in ordinary octavos. Three thousand copies of each shall be published for scientific exchanges
and for sale at the price of publication; and all literary and cartographic materials received in exchange
shall be the property of the United States and form a part of the library of the organization: And the
money resulting from the sale of such publications shall be covered into the Treasury of the United
States.’

On July 7, 1882; the following joint resolution, referring to all Government publications, was
passed by Congress:

“That whenever any document or report shall be ordered printed by Congress, there shall be
printed, in addition to the number in each case stated, the ‘usual number’ (1,900) of copies for binding
and distribution among those entitled to receive them.”

Except in those cases in which an extra number of any publication has been supplied to the Sur-
vey by special resolution of Congress or has been ordered by the Secretary of the Interior, this office
has no copies for gratuitous distribution.

ANNUAL REPORTS.

I. First Annual Report of the United States Geological Survey, by Clarence King. 1880. 8°. 79
pp. 1map.—A preliminary report describing plan of organization and publications.

II. Second Annual Report of the United States Geological Survey, 1880-81, by J. W. Powell.
1882. 8°. lv, 588 pp. 61 pl. 1 map.

Til. Third Annual Report of the United States Geological Survey, 183182, by J. W. Powell.
1883. 8°. xviii, 564 pp. 67 pl. and maps.

IV. Fourth Annual Report of the United States Geological Survey, 188283, by J. W. Powell.
1884. 8°. xxxii, 473 pp. 85 pl. and maps.

V. Fifth Annual Report of the United States Geological Survey, 183354, by J. W. Péwell.
1385. 8° xxxvi, 469 pp. 58 pl. and maps.

VI. Sixth Annual Report of the United States Geological Survey, 188485, by J. W. Powell.
186. 8°. xxix, 570 pp. 65 pl. and maps.

VIL. Seventh Annual Report of the United States Geological Survey, 1885-86, by J. W. Powell.
1883. 8°. xx, 656 pp. 72 pl. and maps.

The Eighth and Ninth Annual Reports are in press.

MONOGRAPHS.

Monograph I is not yet published.

Il. Tertiary History of the Grand Cation District, withatlas, by Clarence E. Dutton, Capt., U.S. A.
1882. 4°, xiv, 264 pp. 42 pl. and atlas of 24 sheets folio. Price $10.12.

III. Geology of the Comstock Lode and the Washoe District, with atlas, by George F. Becker.
1882. 41°. xv, 422 pp. 7 pl. and atlas of 2L sheets folio. Price $11.

IV. Comstock Mining and Miners, by Eliot Lord. 1883. 4°. xiv, 451 pp. 3 pl. Price $1.50.

V. The Copper-Bearing Rocks of Lake Superior, by Roland Duer Irving. 1883. 49. xvi, 464 pp.
151. 29pl.and maps. Price $1.85.

VL. Contributions to the Knowledge of the Older Mesozoic Flora of Virginia, by William Morris
Fontaine. 1883. 4°. xi, 144 pp. 541. 54 pl. Price $1.05.

VIL. Silver-Lead Deposits of Eureka, Nevada, by Joseph Story Curtis. 1884. 4°, xiii, 200 pp.
16 pl. Price $1.20.

VIII. Paleontology of the Eureka District, by Charles Doolittle Walcott. 1854. 4°. xiii, 293 pp.
211, 24 pl. Price $1.10.

1

II ADVERTISEMENT.

IX. Brachiopoda and Lamellibrancbiata of the Raritan Clays and Greensand Marls of New Jersey,
by Robert P. Whitfield. 1885. 4°. xx, 338 pp. 35 pl. 1 map. Price $1.15,

X. Dinocerata. A Monograph of an Extinct Order of Gigantic Mammals, by Othniel Charles
Marsh. 1886. 4° xviii, 243 pp. 561. 56 pl. Price $2.70.

XI. Geological History of Lake Lahontan, a Quaternary Lake of Northwestern Nevada, by Israel
Cook Russell. 1585. 4°. xiv, 288pp. 46 pl. and maps. Price $1.75.

XII. Geology and Mining Industry of Leadville, Colorado, with atlas, by Samuel Franklin Em-
mons. 1886. 4°. xxix, 770 pp. 45 pl. and atlas of 35 sheets folio. Price $3.40.

XIII. Geology of the Quicksilver Deposits of the Pacific Slope, with atlas, by George F. Becker.
1888. 4°, xix, 486 pp. 7 pl. and atlas of 14 sheets folio. Price $2.00.

XIV. Fossil Fishes and Fossil Plants of the Triassic Rocks of New Jersey and the Connecticut
Valley, by John 8S. Newberry. 1888. 4°. xiv, 152 pp. 26 pl. Price $1.00.

Tu preparation:

XV. Younger Mesozoic Flora of Virginia, by William M. Fontaine.

XVI. Paleozoic Fishes of North America, by J. S. Newberry.

XVII. Description of New Fossil Plants from the Dakota Group, by Leo Lesquereux.

—Gasteropoda of the New Jersey Cretaceous and Eocene Marls, by R. P. Whitfield.

—Geology of the Eureka Mining District, Nevada, with atlas, by Arnold Hague.

—Lake Bonneville, by G. K. Gilbert.

—Sauropoda, by O. C. Marsh.

—Stegosauria, by O. C. Marsh.

—Brontotheridw, by O. C. Marsh. .

—The Penokee-Gogebic Iron- Bearing Series of North Wisconsin and Michigan, by Roland D, Irving.

—Report on the Denver Coal Basin, by 8. F. Emmons.

—Report on Silver Cliff and Ten-Mile Mining District, Colorado, by S. F. Emmons.

—Flora of the Dakota Group, by J. 8. Newberry.

—The Glacial Lake Agassiz, by Warren Upham.

—Geology of the Potomac Formation in Virginia, by W. M. Fontaine.

BULLETINS.

Each of the Bulletins contains but one paper and is complete in itself. They are, however, num-
bered in a continuous series, and may be bound in volumes of convenient size. To facilitate this, each
Bulletin has two paginations, one proper to itself and another which belongs to it as part of the volume.

1. On Hypersthene-Andesite and on Triclinic Pyroxene in Augitic Rocks, by Whitman Cross, with
a Geological Sketch of Buffalo Peaks, Colorado, by 8. F. Emmons. 1883. 6°. 42 pp. 2 pl. Price 10
cents,

2, Gold and Silver Conyersion Tables, giving the coining values of troy ounces of fine metal, etc.,
computed by Albert Williams, jr. 1583. 8°. 8pp. Price 5 cents.

3. On the Fossil Faunas of the Upper Devonian, along the meridian of 76° 30‘, from Tompkins
County, N. Y., to Bradford County, Pa., by Henry 8. Williams. 1884. 8°. 36 pp. Price 5 cents.

4. On Mesozoic Fossils, by Charles A. White. 1884. 8°. 36 pp. 9pl. Price 5 cents.

5. A Dictionary of Altitudes in the United States, compiled by Henry Gannett. 1884, 8°. 325 pp.
Price 20 cents.

6. Elevations in the Dominion of Canada, by J. W. Spencer. 1884. 8°. 43 pp. Price 5 cents.

7. Mapoteca Geologica Americana. A Catalogue of Geological Maps Seamonint North and South),
1752-1881, in geographic and chronologic order, by Jules Marcou and John Belknap Marcon. 1884.
x°.* 184 pp. Price 10 cents.

8. On Secondary Enlargements of Mineral Fragments in Certain Rocks, by R. D. Irving and C. R.
Van Hise. 1884. 8°. 56pp. 6pl. Price 10 cents.

9, A Report of work done in the Washington Laboratory during the fiscal year 188334. FP. W.
Clarke, chief chemist; T. M. Chatard, assistant chemist. 1884, 8°. 40 pp. Price 5 cents.

10. On the Cambrian Faunas of North America. Preliminary studies, by Charles Doolittle Wal-
cott. 1884. 8°. 74 pp. 10pl. Price 5 cents.

11. On the Quaternary and Recent Mollusca of the Great Basin; with Descriptions of New Forms,
by R. Ellsworth Call. Introduced by a sketch of the Quaternary Lakes of the Great Basin, by G. K.
Gilbert. 1884. 8°. 66 pp. Gpl. Price 5 cents.

12. A Crystallographie Study of the Thinolite of Lake Lahontan, by Edward $8. Dana. 1884. 8°.
34 pp. 3pl. Price 5 cents.

13. Boundaries of the United States and of the several States and Territories, with a Historical
Sketch of the Territorial Changes, by Hevry Gannett. 1885. 8°. 135 pp. Price 10 cents.

14. The Electrical and Magnetic Properties of the Irou-Carburets, by Carl Barus and Vincent
Strouhal. 1885. 8° 238 pp. Price 15 cents.

15. On the Mesozoic and Cenozoic Paleontology of California, by Charles A. White. 1885. 8°.
33 pp. Price 5 cents.

16. On the Higher Devonian Faunas of Ontario County, New York, by John M. Clarke, 1885. 8°.
86 pp. 3pl. Price 5 cents.

17. On the Development of Crystallization in the Igneous Rocks of Washoe, Nevada, with Notes
on the Geology of the District, by Arnold Hague and Joseph P. Iddings. 1585, 8°. 44 pp. Price 5
cents,

emily! ie FUL AS |
. r’ 4 :

ADVERTISEMENT. III

18. On Marine Eocene, Fresh-water Miocene, and other Fossil Mollusca of Western North America,
by Charles A. White. 1885. 8°. 26pp. 3pl. Price 5 cents.

19. Notes on the Stratigraphy of California, by George F. Becker. 1885. 8°. 28pp. Price 5cents.

20. Contributions to the Mineralogy of the Rocky Mountains, by Whitman Cross and W. F. Hille-
brand. 185. 8°. 114 pp. l1pl. Price 10 cents.

21. The Lignites of the Great Sioux Reservation. A Report on the Region between the Grand and
Moreau Rivers, Dakota, by Bailey Willis. 1885. 8°. I6pp. 5 pl. Price 5 cents.

22. On New Cretaceous Fossils from California, by Charles A. White. 1855. 8°. 25 pp. 5 pl.
Price 5 cents.

23. Observations on the Junction between the Eastern Sandstone and the Keweenaw Series on
Keweenaw Point, Lake Superior, by R. D. Irving and T. C. Chamberlin, 1835. 8°. 124 pp. 17 pl.
Price 15 cents.

24. List of Marine Mollusca, comprising the Quaternary fossils and recent forms from American
Localities between Cape Hatteras and Cape Roque, including the Bermudas, by William Healey Dall.
1885. 8°. 336 pp. Price 25 cents.

25. The Present Technical Condition of the Steel Industry of the United States, by Phmeas Barnes.
1885. 8° 85 pp. Price 10 cents.

26. Copper Smelting, by Henry M. Howe. 1885. 8°. 107 pp. Price 10 cents.

27. Report of work done in the Division of Chemistry and Physics, mainly during the fiscal year
1884~85. 1886. 8°. 80 pp. Price 10 cents.

28. The Gabbros and Associated Hornblende Rocks occurring in the Neighborhood of Baltimore,
Md., by George Huntington Williams. 1886. 8°. 78pp. 4 pl. Price i0 cents.

29. On the Fresh-water Invertebrates of the North American Jurassic, by Charles A. White. 1885.
8°. 41 pp. 4pl. Price 5 cents.

30. Second Contribution to the Studies on the Cambrian Faunas of North America, by Charles
Doolittle Walcott. 1886. 8°. 369 pp. 33 pl. Price 25 cents.

31. Systematic Review of our Present Knowledge of Fossil Insects, including Myriapods and
Arachnids, by Samuel Hubbard Scudder. 1886. 8°. 128 pp. Price 15 cents.

32. Lists and Analyses of the Mineral Springs of the United States; a Preliminary Study, by
Albert C. Peale. 1886. 8° 235 pp. Price 20 cents.

33. Notes on the Geology of Northern California, by J.S. Diller. 1836. 8°. 23 pp. Price5 cents.

34. On the relation of the Laramie Molluscan Fauna to that of the succeeding Fresh-water Eocene
and other groups, by Charles A. White. 1886. 4°. 54 pp. 5pl. Price 10 cents.

35. Physical Properties of the Iron-Carburets, by Carl Barus and Vincent Strouhal. 1886. 8°.
62 pp. Price 10 cents.

36. Subsidence of Fine Solid Particles in Liquids, by Carl Barus. 1886. 8°. 58pp. Price 10 cents.

37. Types of the Laramie Flora, hy Lester Ff. Ward. 1887. 8°. 354 pp. 57 pl. Price 25 cents.

38. Peridotite of Elliott County, Kentacky, by J S. Diller. 1887. 8°. 3Lpp. 1pl. Price 5 cents.

39. The Upper Beaches and Deltas of the Glacial Lake Agassiz, by Warren Upham. 1837. 8°.
84 pp. lpl. Price 10 cents.

40. Changes in River Courses in Washington Territory due to Glaciation, by Bailey Willis. 1587.
8°. 10 pp. 4 pl. Price 5 cents.

41. On the Fossil Faunas of the Upper Devonian—the Genesee Section, New York, by Henry S.
Williams. 1887. 8°. 121 pp. 4 pl. Price 15 cents.

42. Report of work done in the Division of Chemistry and Physics, mainly during the fiscal year
1885-86. F. W. Clarke, chief chemist. 1887. 8°. 152 pp. 1pl. Price 15 cents.

43. Tertiary and Cretaceons Strata of the Tuscaloosa, Tombigbee, and Alabama Rivers, by Eugene
A. Smith and Lawrence C. Johnson. 1887. 8°. 189 pp. 21 pl. Price 15 cents.

44. Bibhhography of North American Geology for 1886, by Nelson H. Darton. 1887. 8°. 35 pp.
Price 5 cents.

45. The Present Condition of Knowledge of the Geology of Texas, by Robert T. Hill. 1887. 8°.
94 pp. Price 10 cents.

46. Nature and Origin of Deposits of Phosphate of Lime, by R. A. F. Penrose, jr., with an Intro-
duction by N.S. Shaler. 1888. 6°. 143 pp. Price 15 cents.

47. Analyses of Waters of the Yeilowstone National Park, with an Account of the Methods of
Analysis employed, by Frank Austin Gooch and James Edward Whitfield. 1538. 8°. 84 pp. Price
10 cents.

4x. On the Form and Position of the Sea Level, by Robert Simpson Woodward. 1888. 8°. 88
pp. Price 10 cents.

Numbers 1 to 6 of the Bulletins form Volume I; Nambers7 to 14, Volume IL; Numbers 15 to 23,
Volume IIL; Numbers 24 to 30, Volume [V; Numbers 31 to 36, Volume V; Numbers 37 to 41, Volume
VI; Numbers 42 to 46, Volume VII. Volume VIII is not yet complete.

In press:

49. On the Latitudes and Longitudes of Certain Points in Missouri, Kansas, and New Mexico, by
R. S. Woodward.

50. Formulas and Tables to facilitate the construction and use of Maps, by R.S. Woodward.
Tie 51. Invertebrate Fossils from California, Oregon, Washington Territory, and Alaska, by C. A.

ite.

52. On the Subaérial Decay of Rocks and the Origin of the Red Color of Certain Formations, by
Israel C. Russell.

53. Geology of the Island of Nantucket, by N.S. Shaler,

TV; ADVERTISEMENT.

In preparation:

—Notes on the Geology of Southwestern Kansas, by Robert Hay.

— On the Glacial Boundary, by G. F. Wright.

— The Gabbros and Associated Rocks in Delaware, by F. D. Chester.

— Fossil Woods and Lignites of the Potomac Formation, by F. H. Knowlton.

— Mineralogy of the Pacifie Coast, by W. H. Melville and Waldemar Lindgren.

—Report of work done in the Division of Chemistry and Physies, mainly during the fiscal year
1586-87. :

—A Report on the Thermo-Electrical Measurement and High Temperatures, by Carl Barus.

— The Greenstone Schist Areas of the Menominee and Marquette Regions of Michigan, by George
H. Williams; with an introduction by R. D. Irving. :

—Bibliography of the Paleozoic Crustacea, by A. W. Vogdes.

—The Viscosity of Solids, by Carl Barus.

—Author-Catalogue of Contributions to North American Geology, by N. H. Darton.

— Ona Group of Volcanic Rocks from the Tewan Mountains, New Mexico, and on the occurrence
of Primary Quartz.in certain Basalts, by J. P. Iddings.

—On the relations of the Traps of the Jura-Trias of New Jersey, by N. H. Darton.

— Altitudes between Lake Superior and the Rocky Mountains, by Warren Upham.

— Mesozoic Fossils in the Permian of Texas, by C. A. White.

STATISTICAL PAPERS.

Mineral Resources of the United States [1882], by Albert Williams, jr. 1883, 8°. xvii, 813 pp.
Price 50 cents.

Mineral Resources of the United States, 1333 aud 1834, by Albert Williams, jr. 1835. 8°. xiv,
1016 pp. Price 60 cents.

Mineral Resources of the United States, 1835. Division of Mining Statistics and Technology.
1886. 8°. vii, 576 pp. Price 40 cents.

Mineral Resources-of the United States, 1835, by David T. Day. 1837. 8°. viii, 813 pp. Price
50 cents.

Mineral Resources of the United States, 1837, by David T. Day. 1883. 8°. vii, 832 pp. Price
50 cents.

In preparation :
Mineral Resources of the United States, 1888, by David T. Day.

The money received from the sale of these publications is deposited in the Treasury, and the
Secretary of that Department declines to receive bank checks, drafts, or postage stamps; all remit-
tances, therefore, must be by POSTAL NOTE or MONEY ORDER, made payable to the Librarian of the
U.S. Geological Survey, or in CURRENCY for the exact amount. Correspondence relating to the pub-
lications of the Survey should be addressed

To THE DIRECTOR OF THE
UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY,

WASHINGTON, D. C.
WASHINGTON, D. C., March 1, 1889.

>
f

a he

ADVERTISEMENT.

LIBRARY CATALOGUE SLIPS.
United States. Department of the interior. (U.S. geological survey).

Department of the interior | — | Monographs | of the | United
States geological survey | Volume XIV | [Seal of the depart-
é ment] |
= Washington | government printing office | 1888
2 Second title: United States geological survey | J. W. Powell,
3 director |—J| Fossil fishes and fossil plants | of the | triassic
= rocks | of | New Jersey and the Connecticut valley | by | John 8.
" Newberry | [Vignette] |

Washington | government printing office | 18-8
4°, xiv, 152 pp. 26 pl.

Newberry (John Strong).

United States geological survey | J. W. Powell, director | — |
Fossil fishes and fossil plants | of the | triassic rocks | of | New
Jersey and the Connecticut valley | by | John S. Newberry |
[Vignette] |

Washington | government printing office | 1888

4°. xiv, 152 pp. 26 pl.

[Unirep States. Department of the interior. (U. S. geological survey).
Monograph XIV].

Author title,

United States geological survey | J. W. Powell, director | — |
Fossil fishes and fossil plants | of the | triassic rocks | of | New
Jersey and the Connecticut valley | by | John 8. Newberry |
[Vignette] |

Washington | government printing office | 1888

4°. xiv, 152 pp. 26 pl.

{UNITED Starrs. Department of the interior. (U. S. geological survey).
Monograph XIV].

Title for subject entry.

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

MONOGRAPHS

OF THE

UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

WV OUEST MOG Ne

WASHINGTON
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
1888

UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

J. W. POWELL, DIRECTOR

FOSSIL FISHES AND FOSSIL PLANTS
di Svs a teyed RB a 1H Ss

NEW JERSEY AND THE CONNECTICUT VALLEY

BY

JOHN S. NEWBERRY

WASHINGTON
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
1888

es

eee

CONTENTS:

HeTTRRTOMCRRANSMUDTAL = scees soc a cemiec cman Geis ecieiseai= cao cce lac nmslemeees'snmena's
PREFACE

PART I.

GEOLOGICAL RELATIONS OF THE TRIASSIC ROCKS OF NEW JERSEY AND THE CONNECTICUT VALLEY.
Geolovical sketch. .. 2.6.25... onc wcees omen cannes ser nce wage es oan on sale e enemen wsennn ae cneane
Geological equivalents of our Triassic rocks .-.....--.--.----- ------ ++ +2222 222s eee ee eee

PART It.

FossIL FISHES OF THE Triassic ROcKS OF NEW JERSEY AND THE CONNECTICUT VALLEY ..-
RORST SHS HOS te serene oP erat tae ete ett ae fetata a alatiaisinlm miauaralaly aicialat otis ie=leroial sialelawiacaisicineletsimra a=) oinicialwatemse
TUTHGY2 COSCO ELE aaa s-ols secs Coe SoC CIS SEO SASS 2SI550r) Ror OSS aSCR SUbSes caicorind aSSORLOC
Descriptions of genera and species... ... 2-22... 2-2. oan e oo wes oie enn ne enn enw on ene
Genus Ischypterus Egerton..... .-.- ...--- 00. -- 00-220 cone one enn ene ene ene eee
Ischypterus ovatus W. C. R
Wis) At Vie (CGR BAS An ar Sos BoececobenanS Ona wonoosine (o.csS ue -poecoseotees
FACECSVATON Wa (Bal iss oean 3 5o55 Ose SAS OE SOE Sne Oooo See ADC eon oseR Cooccs
INLCLOPLELUS, De Spee wnat =a se eal elem = alate ia= miele mia laaln in| em =)=iia io me soee
TIGL GO NS UGS (SD amamon soso cabo does Deco peccisn Oc ese. cOSeen mers semsconscs
AND) AGE) Nop ocoe Hae Sadee sneer Goo HASmeSos Homo Uoee 6asec0 Semen Sc Sa eseC
AULA) ily de] NeSeda send mane oeso ddan saeone yes Joos cane ororusnseEdceoose
elegans, 0. sp---..--. --
MIEVIIGS 26 Bssedoocag pass sseocqseapouls cont oboe open bonr ecHebe case so0ceK
MCGEE, WOE eten Seed Sasackotinceotsconr copecdeeeonese sees Scesicendceon
IU R15) 9) cede cream oS neeee cadens OnSOeceOOnee peSpOceT cccOed eaeC
Tineatus asp sess ees eee sel eee oes A
MTACLO PGCLUS Vis Gon epee ees iaee sere arate = nl ineinatainte lela iee af ae
LSTA TIE Ns poss aben es SeOcO Boe bDL Gos0S0 paooco nosDeseedcroteescace
TBI GIA EM Or, Les (GUISES BRR ane Boseee Secoree CooeC: COs oree SacccSenco caceac
TER diy abo npn S50 SSC Onn GaSREd GAP ICB CDC OCD DOTS ces ceb aon DaEeaeEcEecce
HINT ONES NS) 05 465 Sooke Seoecbongo eso DoceeD CbeE Sd eeneconecmes cage cons
PIERRE ThE) Dbem oao Ho p0o0 ad bGOn DEO Sn anon OCIS Soc cred bose CoE san aanDeeer
Genus Catopterus J. H. R........-... BP GeC oe SER EUE ETE SBE nM cna ARBOR EOS wie des atee
CatopterusshedheldiHoertone ssn a-ae nina name nee elelale ela elm =n te'aie) ania = mila Sadeen
gracilis J. H. R
Hit Wd] O5 ssees sds abo0 noe SOU RC San AO TeoIAOnn GSE P SURES samnne SSSNUOSbS
Owe bE) oshecopogsicce codosu ceo soedar an sopeccdepsse ose eaSscnaseas
ane nilliformispwe Coe essen coca assem ences aace= ceenem no-one eel =aen
EAN TE VG (Od os ane se DeBeeeAn cis GAC SEoE ADOnoe

Page.

24

31

anan
oam wh

a
o

Wal CONTENTS.

Fossil fishes—Continued.
Genus Dictyopyge Egerton....--- .202 220. 2-2 ene cen cece ee ene cee nee cee eee eee ee
Dictyopyge macrura Egerton. ..---. .----- +--+ -- ++ 2-22 ee eee ee eee eee ee eee ee
Genus Ptycholepis, Ag.----. .----- --+- -22 + -- eee cece eee ne eens ee tee eee wee ene
Ptycholepis Marshii Newb -----.------ 20 seenes occe cerens en sens we tens shane aenn=-
Genus Acentropborus Traquair......-..- 22. . 2-2-2 eee ee eee ee cee eee cen ee ee eee eee ee
Acentrophorus Chicopensis, . Sp.----. -- -200 2-20 ee ee cee eee eee eee eee eee ene eee 5
Genus Diplurus Newb..-. ---- ----00 o220 ence con's cocmwe conn ere wee enn nes sonens anenes see
Diplurus longicaudatus Newb. ..---. ..--2- --ceee veeees conn ee tence en eneee scp adel sees

PAR? III,

FossIL PLANTS OF THE TRIASSIC ROCKS OF NEW JERSEY AND THE CONNECTICUT VALLEY....
Sketchiof, Triassic, Wlora: .< 2<- sie mcon f= cae = ae wlaiewinine ee idee me ele miata mate ae tei atta
Descriptions of genera and species ..--.. ---------- -----+-+-------08 eieaiateinete Ree: eexe aes
Dendrophycus triassicus, D: Sp... =~. 2220 cone en ne een ene cree enee aman ene enna

Leno bbs ede on LEE Ae ee neon Asem seo Dnaesoce cD ORES Chan ames gooee serene:

Equisetum Rogersi Schimper --..-.. 02.2.5. - 22-0 scnees concen vere enna nn =n ens

Bquisetum Meriani (?) Brong...-.-.-----. boc. co cees coca en oe eee eee ns oon === ee
Schizoneura planicostata Rogers sp ------ ---<-.- 202202 0- <5 20 Seinen omen en w= = anne
Pachyphyllum‘simileja sp-- ~<a. 92 2m i see lela alate se ale! etoile leila
Pachyphyllum brevifolium, n.sp

Chetirolepis: Munstert Sclnimpeny eee se tee te atte tae ate eter eee re ete ale ee

Obozamites lation |S apowte ere arte ao cyte che ers oleh ciated ate arate atcha tat re Rene lel tela te orate

Otozamiites bre vitolrius yh aye ea acm oye cee er alala este lee ee eee tele
Cycadinocarpus Chapini Newb., n. sp..--.------..-----.----- ----

Diodnites longifolius Emmons sp--.. ---.-- .----- «<2 02- ---5 0-2 220 enn monn nnn anne

HO pPSria Bim Plex, MSPs es eels en ase alae ae oe ae rele arene ae eel 49anss5
Clathropteris platyphylla Brong.-.-.--. .---..---- ---- .---00 see eee 2-222 ween ee anne

Palissya (?) sp.---- ER ae ee eeemccry iota dss cal a cso teen one de Sab ase SObSS

AVAL

VIII.

XIII.

XIV.

. Fig.

. Catopterus Redfieldi Egerton

ILLUSTRATIONS.

. Ischypterus ovatus W. C. R ..----.------ ------ eee ee teen ne een eee ren rene
. Ischypterus Marshii W. C. R .. .----- ------ -----+ e+ 2200 22-2 se 2 ene eee sn rnee neces
. Ischypterus Agassizii W. C. R -:.---- .----- +--+ 2-22 eect cere ee ce rcetteeee tere es
. Ischypterus micropterus Newb ...-..-------- ---+ ---+ ee22-2ee creer cert teens

Fig. 1. Fish of average size -..---. ----------2- ---202 eee ce ee cone eens seen eee
Fig. 2. Unusually large individual. .... .-...--+-+ +++ -2+2 02-222 2222s cence rt eeeee

. Ischypterus tenuiceps Ag..---. ---------+ -----+ eee eee cere ee coer eters eee nee

Figs. 1 and 2. Old individuals, showing extreme development of dorsal scales -.--
Fig. 3. Young individual ...--. .-----------+ +++ 2-5 s--2 22 e222 ee eres eerste ee

1, Ischypterus robustus Newb ....-..----. ---------+ 2-22 22-222 eee reece eee
Fig. 2. Ischypterus fultus Ag.....------------------+ ----2+ +2222 sceeee setters
Fig. 1. Ischypterus fultus Ag ...----.---------- +--+ +++ s+--2+ 2222 renner ret eee
Fig. 2. Ischypterus elegans Newb...--. --...--. ----2+ -+-22+ 2-2-2 eree cece
Fig. 3. Ischypterus tenuiceps Ag -----.------------ BSE ASSOC aCEU Eee SEO IO Le
Fig. 1. Ischypterus alatus Newb -.----. ...--------+ -+--2- 022 2ee cece ce rcee ttc
Fig. 2. Ischypterus alatus Newb ..-. ..-----------+ -+---2 +2202 errors se cec eee eeee

. Ischypterus modestus Newb -..-.---~---- -----5 ------ --22 2222-2 settee teres ures

Wig. 1. Young individual s----- .----. ---- += --06 «= 2222 1-222 22 e nn one teens eo nnne
Fig. 2. Mature individual ....--......-.----+ se---2 +2222 eee n ne een ee ee etereceee
Fig. 3. Old individual. ..-...----.----. .----+ +--+ - +2222 see eee ences eects est ceee

. Fig. 1. Ischypterus elegans Newb -..-.--. .----- -----+ +--+ sere --22 rere Bee

Fig. 2. Ischypterus lenticularis Newb ...-.. .----- -----+++ +--+ ----++--20et errr
Fig. 3. Ischypterus lenticularis Newb..---...---- ---- +--+ ---+--++ 2-22 -errtetttstt

. Ischypterus lineatus Newb ..-------- -----------+ --2eeecrreet erect rte
. Fig. 1. Ischypterus macropterus W. C. R ....--------. se++ +2222 eres eee e rere

Fig. 2. Ischypterus micropterus Newb -..-.-.------ +--+: -+---+---202 220 r rrr reee
Fig. 3. Ischypterus Braunii Newb -.--.--.----------------2++-----
Fig. 1. Ischypterus Braunii Newb -.----. .--- +--+ 0+ +++ ----2+ 2 22ers tecret tte
Fig. 2. Ischypterus Braunii Newb -.--.---. ---. +--+ -+-+ +--+ 2220 eerr seer cere

Fig. 2a. Ischypterus Braunii Newb ---..-------.---- +--+ ++---+ 2-222 errr eres Soac
Fig. 3

Fig. 4

Fig. 5. Ischypterus minutus Newb. ..---..---.------+-+--++ 222-222-220 cert erceee
Fig. 5a. Ischypterus minutus Newb....-.---------- londigacsasecd popseaphsasadensse
Fig. 1. Ischypterus elegans Newb....--.----------+ ---+-+ -eeee0 eee e et errr renee
Fig. 2. Ischypterus elegans Newb ..----. .----- -- +--+ ----2+ se 222-222 nee cette
Fig. 3. Ischypterus gigas Newb.... .--- ------ ----0+ +220 2-222 eer e eee

Fig. 1. Broad form, old individual -.......--22- --se00 ceseerseeeee --22--2-

Vill

PLATE XV.

XVI.

XVII.
XVIII.

XIX.

XXI.

20.9 0

XXIII.
XXIV.

XXyV.

XXVI.

. Diplurus longicaudatus Newb

ILLUSTRATIONS.
Fig. 2. Normal form, young individual. ........--...---------- FpSunseoSbochoasoad=

Fig. 3. Part of mature fish, showing details of fins -.......
Rigs de Catoptennsyarvenlisy a Mla slate ee ele tale a eee te
Figs. 2 and 3, Catopterus gracilis J. IH. R.; posterior portions of bodies of two indi-

Tiduals: ohislend er storie. esse. oes setae ee iele eee el eee eee
Pic. 4. Catoptems parvnlusiWa Cobar se ser lee == amie eee eee ee ters
Bip O29 Catop terns) par vil) Wee leet eae ete ele lean
Cotopterusaminon New sa-seses see neem emo e nie )alaletsian wiclee atelier See erat teeta
JA as Me WMO OPN exe) eee LN bWNY IDS aft sales oe yeoeeo cond Gosenecs coc csoee sed asos ones
Big 2 sDichyopyre macrarn Mh SeHOne asec ce tase ee eee ee nae tae ree
Fig. 3. Catoptecus ornatus Newb -.----. ..--..-......---- “Seer SaorsosGhsashegseo5
Fig. 3a. Scales of dorsal line enlarged
Fig. 3b. Scales of side enlarged
Hig AC atopterosi, SpssyOURG ec seec cms a naeeeeee sete ass eae =e meee oem eee
Wig. 5. Catopterus anguilliformis W.C,R-..-....--- Beare vaRosbocanacdsccaoasie ses-
hig. dc te tycholepiswMarshilNew Welsh emtve state setae el ocean sete arsine eens
Big..2.-btycholepis;MarshitNewbs-2-- cs e<-oas sees see eee SSIES Cece tare cee eae
LRH els eeu ckh Gin Phat Pee es Deter Seema AS Roce mon Saen aoe Sues poaonSonaorases:
Fig. 3. Acentrophorus Chicopensis Newb
Fig. 4, Acentrophorus Chicopensis Newb

Fig. 2. Supplemental caudal fin
Figs 3 and 4. Seales, outside
Wigs b; Scales siNSider= == sacs e os toe escse sie eee = lea tela aera eee ogee ee eee eee eee
Dendrophycus Triassicus Newb
Mig ls Basal POLeLOn Ot MyOCOM Ce em ater eee ei cteteaters eto ee ete ee teeta ete
Big, 2 SEixtremitiesor arfrroup ot branches sssse\escio <2 ase ema eee el alee tases
Fig. 1. Baiera Miinsteriana ? Ung
Bie 2 Pachy phyllamisimtl own ene cee jee es Sea sete eee ee ee
Ric, 3. kachyphyllom brevifoliumoyNew Damn eee aces ae eee are eae
Big. 3a.. Lwie with divercentilenves': soe.) ees etees ease ee erent nae eee
Prose Lisa yep pNeSSe eke eS ate aeolian teal = eee tet etter
Mig. 30s (CONG tS seas sae tent mis toml= caer ace =laseele a es Sin ey ene ene ete eer
Fig. 4. Cheirolepis Miinsteri, Schenk sp
Fig. 4a, Cone seale

Fig. 5. Phragma of Equisetum Rogersi Schimp -....-....---- cose sae cee, eee Sete eee
Fig. 5a. Phragma of Equisetum Rogersi Schimp, under side ...-..--.---.-----+----

Fig. 6, Clathropteris platypbylla ? Brong
Baiera multifida Fontaine .......-.--

Vig. 1. Otozamites latior Saporta; base of frond, natural size. ...--.--...----.----
Fig. 2. Otozamites latior Saporta; suinmit of frond ....-.-..----.-.-..-----.-----
ip. 2a, Portionienlarceditoish oye mer vat io Wise eye tete aele ahs re ele ela ee
Fig. 3: Otozamites brevifolius Br. Braun 2-2-2). .coees: see-i-eane el -me eae eee
Fig. 4. Cycadinocarpus Chapini Newb...-....-.....-.--..- eae cee wae sceeeanes
Fig. 1. Loperia simplex Newb.; main stem much flattened. .....-...-----;--------
Pic; 2) Loperiasimplex Newb. ; branch and leaves--.2o---2-4-25 «== ee eee a
Vig. 3. Loperia simplex Newb. ; branches springing from stem .....--.-...--------
Fig. 4. Diodnites longifolins, Emmous sp. .--.......- 25-22. .2 2200 con cne sen nn- eenne=

Trunk oficonifer! CE alissyant) ree cn ease nis ae te ee ae eee sin Ras Sie arate

LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL.

CotumsBiA Cotitecr, New York,
August 1, 1887.
Sir: I have the honor to transmit herewith a memoir prepared at your
request on the Fossil Fishes and Fossil Plants of the Triassic Rocks of
New Jersey and the Connecticut Valley.
With great respect, your obedient servant,
J. S. NEWBERRY,
Hon. J. W. PowE t,
Director U.S. Geological Survey.

PREFACE.

It is hoped by the author that the following pages will do something to
supply what has long been felt to be a want in American geology: a better
knowledge of the fauna and flora of the Triassic rocks of eastern North
America. These rocks probably furnished the first fossils collected on this
continent—fossil fishes from Durham and Sunderland, in the Connecticut
Valley; fossil plants from the coal basin of Richmond, Va.; and, still more
interesting, the wonderful series of so-called bird tracks first noticed at
Turner’s Falls, Mass.

A few of the fossil plants of Virginia were described by Prof. W. B.
Rogers in the reports of the Association of American Geologists and Natu-
ralists, 1843, and by Mr. C. J. F. Bunbury in the Quarterly Journal of the
Geological Society of London, volume 3, 1851, and some notices of the fossil
fishes, with brief descriptions of certain species, were published by Agassiz,
Sir Philip Egerton, and Messrs. W. C. and J. H. Redfield, at various times
between 1838 and 1856. Many figures and descriptions of the remains of
both plants and animals were also published by Prof. Ebenezer Emmons
in his Geological Report of the Midland Counties of North Carolina, in 1856,
but, though deservedly eminent as a geologist, Professor Kmmons had
little acquaintance with paleontology, and this contribution rather increased
than satisfied the desire for more thorough knowledge of the life of the At-
lantic coast in Mesozoic times. No systematic collection nor thorough
study of the fauna or flora of the formation as a whole was attempted until
about 1880, when Prof. W. M. Fontaine, of the University of Virginia, began
a careful review of the fossil plants of the Virginia and North Carolina

XI

XII TRIASSIC FISHES AND PLANTS.

Mesozoic coal basins. His results were published in a memoir on The
Older Mesozoic Flora of Virginia, which was issued in 1883, as volume 4

of the Monographs of the U. 8. Geological Survey. This threw a flood of -

light upon the vegetation of the Atlantic coast in the Mesozoic ages and
established beyond question the parallelism of our New Red Sandstone with
the Keuper of Europe; a matter which had been much debated, with
somewhat discordant conclusions, by Hitchcock, the brothers Rogers,
Lyell, Marcou, and Emmons.

Thus one of the wants which has been referred to was satisfactorily
supplied; but the animal remains found in our Triassic rocks are still to be
systematically reviewed. The immense series of tracks of terrestrial ani-
mals found on the old beaches of the Triassic estuaries—the autographs,
as I have elsewhere called them, of at least one hundred different kinds of
bipeds and quadrupeds of diverse sizes and structures which inhabited the
eastern coast of North America in the Triassic age, and left little other ree-
ord of their existence—though beautifully illustrated by Hitchcock and
Deane, are still as mysterious and tantalizing as ever. Comparatively few
bones of the animals themselves have been met with up to the, present time ;
but these confirm the conclusions, drawn from the remains of terrestrial Mes-
ozoic animals found elsewhere, that the tracks referred to were not made
by birds as first supposed, but by reptiles or amphibians. Doubtless in fu-
ture years some Mesozoic cemetery will be discovered like those of Tilgate
Forest in England and Bernissart in Belgium, where the abundance of ver-
tebrate remains and the perfection of their preservation will permit the re-
habilitation of this interesting fauna.

The fossil fishes of our Triassic rocks have long needed a fuller ex-
position than had thitherto been given to them. The materials upon which
the Messrs. Redfield based their important contributions to our knowl-
edge of this group of fossils were incidentally collected from surface expos-
ures and were necessarily limited in quantity, the fossils themselves were
generally fragmentary and imperfect, and an interval of more than thirty
years has elapsed since their last communication was made on this subject.
Having long been interested in the Paleozoic fishes of Ohio, when I came to
New York to reside and began to form a geological museum at Columbia

bid I

30

PREFACE, XIIl

College my attention was naturally directed to these, the most striking fos-
sils to be found in the vicinity. After obtaining by purchase good speci-
mens of all the species to be had in the valley of the Connecticut, men
were employed to make excavations in the fish beds at Boonton, N. J., and
from that locality many hundreds were obtained in a good state of preser-
vation. These, with those procured elsewhere, gave me much more and
better material for study than had been accessible to any one else who had
been interested in the subject. The accumulation of this new material made
it apparent that our Triassic rocks contained some genera not before found
there and a larger number of species than had before been described. In
order to identify these I examined the collections made by the Messrs. Red-
field, all of which were courteously placed at my service by Prof. O. C.
Marsh, as were those in the American Museum of Natural History by Prof.
R. P. Whitfield and those in the cabinet at Amherst College by Prof. B. K.
Emerson. My first intention was simply to identify the species which had
come into my possession, but I soon found that to do this satisfactorily all
the literature of the subject and all accessible material, both old and new,
must be passed in review. W-hen this had been done it seemed to me that
the facts I had gathered would be a valuable contribution to American
geology if they could be put into shape and published, and the following
memoir is the result of an effort in that direction.

Many circumstances have rendered my task a difficult one. I have en-
deavored with sincere loyalty to my old friends W. C. and J. H. Redfield,
father and son, to secure to them as far as possible the fruit of their study
of our Triassic fishes; but, from the limited amount and the imperfect pres-
ervation of the material in their hands and the brevity of their descriptions
it has not always been possible to identify and accurately define their spe-
cies. Besides this, many of the specimens which served as their types were
burned with the other collections of the New York Lyceum of Natural
History, and of the specimens remaining in the Redfield collection the
ereater part are without other labels than numbers to which no correspond-
ing catalogue has been discovered. For these reasons I feel that in regard
to specific’ distinctions my work is imperfect and is liable to modification
with the gradual accumulaticn of more and better material. I have

XIV TRIASSIC FISHES AND PLANTS.

thought, however, that the fossil fishes from our Triassic rocks which have
been lying in the cabinets of our colleges and collectors should if possible
be made available for the use of teachers and students, and should contribute
their part to illustrate what is perhaps the most’ interesting and yet least
known epoch in the geologic history of North America, that of the Trias.
As a contribution to this history I have accumulated by far the largest col-
lection of our Triassic fishes yet made, have studied them with some care,
have labeled-them plainly according to my lights, and have placed them in
the Geological Museum of Columbia College, where they will be safe, since
it is fire-proof, and where they will be accessible to those who shall carry
to completeness the investigations of these fossils begun by the Messrs.
Redfield, continued by me, and to be concluded by generations yet to come.

In conclusion I desire to express my obligations for assistance and
courtesies received from Professors Marsh, Whitfield, and Emerson; to Mr.S.
W. Loper, of Durham, Conn., whose enthusiasm in collecting and skill in
developing such specimens as are found in his vicinity have resulted in con-
tributing to several museums the best examples of our Triassic fishes known
to exist; also to Mr. I. C. Russell, to whose intelligent supervision of the
excavations made at Boonton, we owe the large amount and excellent con-
dition of the material obtained there.

PA E.

GEOLOGICAL RELATIONS OF THE TRIASSIC ROCKS OF NEW
JERSEY AND THE CONNECTICUT VALLEY.

MON xIy——lL

GEOLOGICAL SKETCH.

The rocks which inclose the fossils described on the following pages
occupy a series of detached areas extending interruptedly from Nova Scotia
to North Carolina. They are in the form of basins, with their longest diam-
eters northeast and southwest, parallel with the bearing of the ridges of the
Alleghany Mountain belt Indeed, they seem to have been deposited in
troughs lying between the most easterly and lowest of these ridges; troughs
that were for ages occupied by fresh or brackish water lakes or estuaries,
the surface drainage of the adjacent country.

After the Carboniferous age the whole region between the Mississippi
and the Atlantic was raised above the ocean level, where it has remained
with little variation of altitude to the present time. Of this belt of elevated
country, which reached from the Green Mountains and the Adirondacks to
the Gulf, the most easterly portion was much the older. This was formed
by the Blue Ridge and the Hudson Highlands, with one or more parallel
ridges on the east, which have since been depressed. The Alleghanies
proper were added toward the close of the Carboniferous age. In-Mesozvie
times all this broad belt of highland was suffering erosion, and the material
removed-was carried away by the draining streams, both east and west,
either in suspension or in solution. That which was dissolved flowed off
into the somewhat distant oceanic basins, where it was deposited by organic
agencies as limestone or flint, as it was lime or silica; while the suspended
material was spread as sand, clay, and gravel cver what are now the plains
of the Mississippi Valley and what were then water-filled basins along the
Atlantic coast. As I shall show farther on, the first of the Mesozoic strata

to which we have access—composed of materials removed from the ancient
3

4 TRIASSIC FISHES AND PLANTS.

land mentioned above and spread round its margins—were laid down during
the last half of the Triassic age, and a subsequent subsidence caused these
to be covered by finer and more calcareous sediments during the last half of
the Cretaceous age.

With the Mesozoic deposits of the interior of the continent we have now
no immediate concern, as the task before us is to trace the history of those
which accumulated on its eastern slope, and especially those formed during
the Triassic age, viz: the shales, sandstones, and conglomerates, which were
deposited in the lakes and bays already referred to. Of these Triassic areas
the most northerly is that of Nova Scotia, about the Bay of Fundy, Prince
Edward Island, ete. The second is that of the Connecticut Valley, which
reaches from the north line of Massachusetts to Long Island Sound. The
third, which may be called the Palisade area, extends from Rockland County,
N. Y., to Orange County, Va., a distance of about three hundred and fifty
miles. This area, which has the form of a long and narrow trough, is
bounded on the west by the Blue Ridge, and on the east by the Archean
rocks of the Staten Island, Trenton, and Philadelphia axis.

In Virginia and North Carolina are several distinct and smaller basins
lying eastward of the Palisade area, some of which contain coal beds of
economic value. The Triassic rocks which fill these basins are alike in
this, that they consist chiefly of beds of conglomerate, sandstone (sometimes
arkose), and shales, interstratified with heavy beds of diabase. The pre-
vailing color of both sandstones and shales is red or reddish, but the Con-
necticut. area includes layers of nearly black shale charged with carbona-
ceous matter, containing many remains of fishes and plants, and even some
thin films of coal. Also a small part of the series in New Jersey consists of
dark or dove colored shales charged with organic matter, sometimes crowded
with the remains of fishes, and exhaling a marked bituminous odor when
struck with a hammer. It should also be said that a small detached basin
of Triassic rocks in Southbury, Conn., includes a thin sheet of impure lime-
stone.

The sandstones of the series are frequently firm and massive, and are
extensively used as building stone, important quarries having been for many
years worked at Long Meadow, Mass., Portland, Conn., and Newark, N. J.

"Ae.
4

GEOLOGICAL SKETCH. 5

These quarries have furnished much of the building material employed in
our cities, and the fronts of fully one-half of the residences of New York
are composed of ‘ brownstone,” as it is called, derived from them.

The thickness of the Triassic series in the Connecticut and Palisade
areas is 5,000 feet or more, and the arrangement of the strata among them-
selves is peculiar and as yet not satisfactorily explained. In the Connecticut
area the rocks all dip toward the east, the outcropping edges of the trap
sheets left in strong relief by the erosion of the associated beds forming the
bold escarpments of Hast Rock and West Rock, at New Haven, Conn.,
Mount Tom and Mount Holyoke, in Massachusetts. In New Jersey, on
the contrary, the dip of the Triassic beds is generally towards the west at
an angle of from three to fifteen degrees with the horizon, and the edges of
the trap sheets form bold cliffs, which face the east and constitute the sum-
mit of the ridges known as the Palisades, First and Second Newark Mount-
ains, etc. In addition to these sheets of trap the strata are cut by many
dikes of diabase, which cross them vertically or at a high angle.

The origin of the singular structure I have described has been much
discussed. Many of the beds show ripple-marks, sun cracks, and rain-drop
impressions, which prove that they were once beaches or mud flats, some-
times exposed to the air. They are also frequently impressed by the tracks
of large and small animals, generally three-toed, but sometimes showing
four or five digits. These were at first supposed to be for the most part
the tracks of birds, but are now believed to have been made by reptiles and
amphibians. We have here autographs of perhaps one hundred different
kinds of animals of which scarce any other record has been discovered, a
few scattered bones and one or two imperfect skeletons being all yet found
of the creatures themselves. Everything indicates that these tracks were
made by animals that frequented the shores of bays and estuaries where
the retveating tide left broad surfaces which were their feeding grounds.
Inasmuch as many successive beds show ripple-marks, sun cracks, and tracks,
the conclusion seems inevitable that the areas where these strata were de-
posited were slowly sinking and that the land-wash spread by the tide
constantly formed new sheets, upon which fresh records were inscribed.
The downward movement must have been very slow, for it apparently about

6 TRIASSIC FISHES AND PLANTS.

kept pace with the accumulation of material; but it was not regular, as we
find alternations of conglomerate, sandstone, and shale, which were deposited
in water of different depth. The uniform dip of the Triassic strata in each
basin and the opposite inclination of those in the Connecticut and the Pali-
sade areas have been variously explained. One theory proposed by Prof.
H. D. Rogers’ is that the strata were laid down upon a slope. This theory
might be true of the coarse material deposited along an inclined shore, but
could hardly be applicable to the finely laminated shales and limestones
which accumulated in deep water.

Another view, advocated by Mr. I. C. Russell? is that the Triassic basins
of the Connecticut Valley and New Jersey were once connected, and the
strata were deposited continuously over all the area between them; that
subsequently the central portion of this area was elevated and the Triassic
rocks were eroded from it, leaving the two sunken margins occupied by
beds which rise respectively from the east and west towards the central
elevated area. Mr. Russell has studied the structure of the Triassic area of
New Jersey with much care, and in his paper he presents many facts and
a strong array of arguments in favor of his theory. There are, however,
two difficulties which suggest themselves and call for further investigation
of the problem before we can accept this solution. These difficulties are—

First. Not a trace of Triassic rocks is now anywhere visible in all the
broad belt between the Hudson River and the Connecticut Valley, and it
seems scarcely possible that if they once covered this belt to the depth of
many thousand feet they should have been so completely removed.

Second. It has been found that on western Long Island, opposite the
center of the New Jersey Triassic area, the crystalline rocks, which are a
continuation southward of those lying between the Hudson and the Con-
necticut, are covered unconformably by Cretaceous strata, with no Trias
between them. This would indicate that the Trias of the New Jersey basin
never reached over that portion of the divide.

Still another theory has been proposed by: Prof. W. M. Davis to ac-
count oo) the structure of the Triassic beds of the Connecticut Valley. This

l Fin: al Rover Geology of New fone 1840, pp. 166-171,
2Annals New York Academy of Sciences, vol. i, p. 220.

GEOLOGICAL SKETCH. a

was presented by him to the geological section of the American Association
at its meeting at Buffalo, in 1886, and was subsequently published in the
American Journal of Science for November of that year. This theory sup-
poses that the Triassic rocks were once deposited horizontally, or nearly so ;
that the trap sheets were overflows and not intrusive, and that all were
broken and inclined by a series of faults, the result of lateral pressure; this
pressure affecting primarily the underlying crystalline rocks, which, stand-
ing nearly vertical, slipped on each other, causing a series of fractures and
uplifts along their lines of strike. Professor Davis has worked out this theory
with much ingenuity and ability, and, if it shall be found upon further ex-
amination that the series of faults which he depicts do really traverse the
Triassic rocks, we shall be indebted to him for the solution of what has been
one of the most difficult problems in American geology. But there are some
facts which are apparently incompatible with its universal application. No
such faults as Professor Davis supposes to exist are discoverable in the
localities I have had an opportunity of examining since the promulgation
of his views, viz: along the Palisades, and at East Rock and West Rock,
New Haven; and some of the trap sheets are certainly intrusive, having
baked the beds on both sides of them.

The materials of which the Triassic beds are composed are all pre-
sumably, and in part at least demonstrably, derived from the adjacent
highlands. In New Jersey the conglomerates are made up of rolled frag-
ments of the granitoid rocks of the neighboring hills, and the sandstone,
arkose, and shale apparently represent the different stages of mechanical
decomposition of the quartz and feldspar of the granite. The New Jersey
highlands, as well as other portions of the Blue Ridge belt, are known to
contain great quantities of iron ore, and the erosion of the eneiss which
forms this beit must necessarily result in the distribution of a large amount
ofiron Hence it is not surprising that the shales and sandstones all con-
tain enough of this element to give them a red or reddish color whenever it
is in the form of the anhydrous peroxide. The fact that it is generally in
this condition, and therefore that the rock is red, proves that it contained
little or no organic matter when deposited ;. for whenever decaying organic
matter is present in any cousiderable quantity it reduces the peroxide of

8 TRIASSIC FISHES AND PLANTS.

iron to protoxide, and makes the color, so far as influenced by the salts
of iron, gray, green, or blue. Where the organic matter is in very large
quantity it imparts the characteristic color of carbon, and makes the shale
or limestone which contains it black.

The general absence of organic matter in the Triassic rocks is doubt-
less due to the circumstances under which they were deposited; that is, in
brackish water, which is always unfriendly to life, and perhaps was sub-
ject to high tides, which caused physical commotion, another unfavorable
condition. We can imagine the circumstances attending the accumulation
of the Triassic sediments to have been somewhat like those which now
prevail in the Bay of Fundy, where the advance and retreat of a bore, or
very high tide, keeps the water always in violent motion and turbid, and the
alternating extremes of ebb and flow forbid the occupation of the littoral
zone by either animals or plants. The gray and blue shales of Boonton
and Sunderland contain an abundance of organic matter, of which sufficient
would be furnished by the fishes to partially deoxidize the iron deposited
with them, while the black shales of Plainfield and Weehawken, N.J., and
Durham, Conn., are colored simply by the abundance of carbonaceous matter.
An illustration of the truth of the views here proposed is found in the dif-
ference between the colors prevailing in the Palisade area and the Richmond
basin. In the former the rocks are, as has been stated, generally very
barren of fossils and the color is mostly reddish, while in the latter the
quantity of organic matter is large and the color of the rock is blue, gray,
or black.

GEOLOGICAL EQUIVALENTS OF OUR TRIASSIC ROCKS.

The age of the series of rocks which have been called Triassic on the
preceding pages has been much discussed. Maclure considered them the
equivalent of the Old Red Sandstone of Scotland, being influenced by
the similarity of their lithological characters.

Mr. Richard C. Taylor, for a time at least. entertained the opinion that
the group of rocks we are now considering belonged to the Coal Measures,
being led to this conclusion by the presence of coal beds in the Richmond
basin and the general resemblance to the Coal Measures of Pennsylvania
exhibited by the associated rocks. A single one of the abundant fossil

GEOLOGICAL SKETCH. 9

plants which occur in the Richmond coal basin would, however, have been
sufficient to show the error of this opinion.

Prof. Edward Hitchcock, who was one of the earliest to consider the
subject, arrived at the conclusion that our Red Sandstone series was the
equivalent of the New Red Sandstone of Europe. To this he was led
mainly by the similarity of their lithological characters and their position
relative to the Carboniferous rocks below and the Cretaceous above. He
also mentions the discovery in these rocks of portions of a vertebrate
skeleton which was not a fish, and he inferred from that fact that the series
was Mesozoic, because at that time no animals of higher rank than fishes
had been found in the Paleozoic rocks. We have since learned that am-
phibians are common in the Coal Measures, and the remains of reptiles are
not wanting. At the time Professor Hitchcock wrote, the Permian and the
Trias were not separated, but both were included in the so-called New Red
Sandstone. This term was used to designate the group which, containing’
much Red Sandstone, rests on the Carboniferous, and to distinguish it from
the Old Red Sandstone below.

So Professor Hitchcock supposed that we had in the rocks under con-
sideration the equivalents of the Rotheliegende, as well as of the Bunter
and the Keuper. The same view was taken later by Prof. Ebenezer Em-
mons in his Geological Report of the Midland Counties of North Carolina,
1856, page 275, receding from an earlier opinion (1853)—when he called
the whole series Triassic—for the reason that in the lower portion of the
Dan River section, North Carolina, he found the remains of Thecodont
saurians. On the other hand, Profs. W. B. and H. D. Rogers were led by
the general resemblance of the ferns and cycads of the Richmond basin to
those of the Lias of Whitby, England, to consider these rocks Liassie, that
is, Lower Jurassic. This view was also shared by Sir Charles Lyell when,
in 1845, he visited the Richmond coal basin and collected a series of fossil
plants, which were examined by C. J. F. Bunbury, who had given much
attention to fossil botany."

Prof. Jules Marcou, on his Geological Map of the United States, pub-
lished in 1853, represents the New Red Sandstone of Virginia as Liassie,

‘Quart. Jour. Geol. Soc. London, vol. 3, 1847, pp. 261-28.

10 TRIASSIC FISHES AND PLANTS.

but in his Geology of North America, 1858, he claims that the Richmond
coal basin is of the age of the Keuper or Upper Trias, although he accepts
the view of Professor Emmons, that the coal series of Deep and Dan
Rivers, North Carolina, is at base Permian. On page 16 of the Geology of
North America, Prof. J. Marcou publishes a letter of Prof. Oswald Heer, of
Zurich, written July 25, 1857, in which he reviews the fossil flora of the
Richmond and North Carolina coal basins, and regards it as contempo-
raneous with that of the Keuper.

In October, 1857, Sir Charles Lyell, writing to Professor Marcou (loe.
cit.) quotes a note from Mr. Bunbury upon this subject, in which, referring to
his paper on the Richmond plants' where he had expressed the opinion that
the formation containing them might belong to the Jurassic or to the Tri-
assic period, and that it might, with almost equal plausibility, be referred to
either, he says: ‘‘At the time I wrote this the Basle and Baireuth beds were
supposed to be Lias.” Professor Marcou comments on this as follows: “As
the Basle and Baireuth beds are now recognized by every geologist as
belonging to the Keuper, it will appear that Bunbury never intended to
put the Virginia coal field in the true Jurassic of England; so that we all
agree to regard the Red Sandstone of Virginia and North Carolina as
Keuper.”
In 1883 Prof. W. M. Fontaine published the results of a careful study
‘made by himself of the flora of the coal series of Virginia in a monograph
issued by the U.S. Geological Survey, with the title “Contributions to the
Knowledge of the Older Mesozoic Flora of Virginia.” In this monograph
(pp. 122, 123) he enumerates thirty-nine weil-defined species of plants, of
which 23 per cent. are peculiar to North Carolina, 41 per cent. are found in
Virginia, 20 per cent. are allied to or identical with Jurassic forms while
the number of species identical with or allied to Rheetic plants amounts to
38 per cent.; or, as he says:”

Assuming with Feistmantel that the Rajmahal group of India is of Liassic age,
we have two species identical with and six nearly allied to Jurassic plants, while
seven species are identical with and eight closely allied to Rheetic plants.

This shows that the plant-bearing strata of Virginia and North Caro-
lina may be safely considered equivalent in age to the Rheetic beds of Ger-

'Quar. Jour. Geol. Soc. London, vol. 3, 1847, p. 288. 2 Op. ecit., p. 123,

ioe FP

GEOLOGICAL SKETCH. ip

many ; a result confirming and further illustrating the conclusions of Heer,
Marcou, Bunbury, and others, who have regarded the Richmond coal series
as Upper Trias. The Rheetic, formerly included in the Keuper, is known to
form beds of passage between the Trias and the Lias, though with a still
prevailing Triassic facies.

We are not yet in possession of the material necessary for making an
exact comparison between the rocks of the southern Triassic areas and those
of New Jersey and Connecticut. No considerable collection of the fossil
fishes of the Richmond and North Carolina basins has been made, though
they are known to abound there; but the few fish remains from North
Carolina and Virginia which have come under my observation show that
there are marked differences between the faunas of the northern and south-
ern Triassic basins. On the other hand, the plants thus far collected in

New Jersey and Connecticut are few—since they are not common in any
locality yet known—while plants are by far the most striking and abun-
dant fossils in the Virginia and North Carolina basins. They have been
eathered by many collectors, and have been now studied by Professor Fon-
taine and described in the monograph referred to above. More fishes from
the southern areas and more plants from the northern must therefore be
collected before a satisfactory comparison can be made. So far as they
throw light upon this subject, the facts already gathered indicate a general
parallelism between the northern and southern areas; some differences,
but many points of identity being discernible. For example, the Richmond
coal basin has furnished to me one species of Catopterus (C. gracilis) which
is common in New Jersey, but by far the most abundant fish of the Rich-
mond basin is Dictyopyge macrura Egt., which has not yet been found in
the northern basins. ‘Traces of two other genera and species unknown at
the North have been obtained from Richmond. It is probable that the
large fish of which a fragment is figured by Sir Philip Egerton,’ and called
a Tetragonolepis, is an Ischypterus, iden tical with the large and broad spe-
cies (I. ovatus) which occurs at Sunderland and Boonton. Whether the
other species of fishes belonging to the genera Catopter us, Ischypterus, Dip-

Jurus, ete., found in the northern basins, will be obtained at the South when

1 Quart. Jour. Geol. Soe. London, vol. 3, 1547, pl. 9.

12 F TRIASSIC FISHES AND PLANTS.

they shall be carefully sought for, remains to be seen. A conclusive com-
parison cannot be made, however, till a thorough search for fishes is insti-
tuted in the southern basins; for, while we do not always find the things
we seek, we make full collections of those fossils only which are the objects
of special search.

A comparison of the fossil plants of the northern and southern basins
is somewhat more satisfactory, and yet the limited number of species obtained
at the North leaves the result of such comparison far from conclusive. —Pro-
fessor Fontaine, as has been mentioned, has enumerated about forty species
of plants obtained from the Richmond and North Carolina coal basins.
Among these perhaps the most abundant is the large monophyllous fern
Twniopteris magnifolia of Rogers, but this has not yet been found anywhere
at the North, nor has any other similar fern been met with there. Another
common plant at Richmond is Schizoneura planicostata (Calamites planicos-
tatus of Rogers), and this I have found at Milford, N. J.; Durham, Conn ;
and Sunderland, Mass. An allied plant is Hquisetum Rogersi, Schimper
(Lquisetum columnare of Brongniart and Rogers). Professor Fontaine says:’
“This plant is one of the most characteristic fossils of the Richmond coal
field, and has a wide vertical and horizontal range.” He further says that
it is almost everywhere found with Macroteniopteris magnifolia, and that they
form the only fossil plants of some localities. This plant is rare at the North,
as I have obtained it from but one locality —Milford, N. J. Another common
plant at Richmond is a fern, belonging to the genus Clathropteris, which
Fontaine?’ identifies with C. platyphylla var. expansa Saporta, and with C. rec-
tiusculus of Edward Hitchcock, jr., described in the American Journal of
Science for July, 1855. This plant oceurs rather abundantly at Durham,
Conn., and at Hast Hampton, Mass. We find also at the former place a
delicate and slender Baiera, which may not be distinct from that obtained by
Emmons in North Carolina and figured by him in his American Geology,
Part 6, page 133. Another common plant at Durham has a simple flattened
stem from half an inch to an inch in width and sometimes a foot or more in
length. This is apparently identical with that figured by Emmons,’ and
named by Fontaine Bambusiwm Carolinense.

1 Mon. cited, p. 12. *Ibid., p. 54. 3 American Geology, part vi, p, 132.

GEOLOGICAL SKETCH. 13

Among the conifers apparently two or three are common to the northern
and southern Triassic basins. Palissya Braunii, Endl., occurs in North Car-
olina, and a fine specimen of it is figured by Fontaine on Plate L of his
monograph. I have a still finer specimen from the quarries at Newark,
N. J., where it seems to be common; and, although the coarse sandstone
has not often preserved the foliage, what I suppose to be portions of its
trunks and branches are very numerous.

The plant which Fontaine considers identical with Cheirolepis Miinsteri,
Schimper, is found at Durham and many other places in Connecticut, as
well as in Massachusetts and New Jersey. As I have shown in my notes
on the Triassic plants, this is probably not a Cheirolepis, but a Pachyphyllum;
but there is no question of its occurrence in all the northern and southe. n
basins.

On the other hand, among the small number of plants from the Trias ot
New Jersey and Connecticut are two or three which have not yet been found
at the South. Of these the most important is a species of Otozamites, which
is rather common at Durham, but not yet found elsewhere. — Its fronds are

‘one to two feet in length by one to three inches wide. When it was first

found, many years ago, I was unable to distinguish it from Otozamites brevi-
jolius Fr. Braun, one of the most characteristic plants of the Rheetic beds of
Bamberg, Baireuth, and other places. Recently Count Saporta has sep-
arated the larger fronds with narrow pointed pinnules from the smaller
with shorter rounded pinnules (all of which were formerly attributed to O.
brevifolius), and has made them the type of his species Olozamites latior.
These correspond precisely in size, form, and nervation with our Durham
plant, and we may therefore accept this as another species common to our
Triassic beds and the Rheetic of Germany and France, contributing an ad-
ditional fact to the already sufficient proof of the parallelism that has been
before reported.

The relations of the Triassic beds of the Atlantic coast to those of the in-
terior and the western margin of the continent can hardly be established
without larger collections of fossils from western localities. The Triassic
strata underlying the Indian Te erritory, northern Texas, New Mexico, etc.,

1Paléontologie Geneene) Végétaux, aah 2, p. 130, Pls, 97, 98.)

14 TRIASSIC FISHES AND PLANTS.

are peculiarly barren of fossils. They are generally reddish sandstones, con-
elomerates, and shales below, with a series of highly colored indurated marls
or fine-grained calcareous sandstones above, frequently charged with salt
and sometimes including extensive sheets of gypsum. The sandstones are
also conspicuously cross-bedded, and it is evident that the whole series was
deposited in a shallow sea, swept by strong currents or high tides, and that
bays, estuaries, or lagoons were formed at various times, in which the water
was evaporated and its salt and gypsum were precipitated. These condi-
tions were unfavorable to the presence of animal or vegetable life: as con-
sequences, we rarely find any fossils in the beds, and the iron they contain
is peroxidized, imparting to them their characteristic red color. This great
sheet of Triassic rocks originally extended to the Wasatch Mountains, which
formed the western shore of the sea in which they were deposited.

Passing over hundreds of miles where these Triassic rocks were just
beneath the surfuce and freely exposed in cliffs and stream beds, I have
sought for months in vain to find in them any traces of life; yet in two
localities which I visited I was more successful, and from a third I have
received a large collection of fossil plants. These localities are San José,
near Pecos, in New Mexico, the old copper mines above Abiquiu, and Los
Bronces, on the Yaki River, in Sonora. At the first locality are found Walchia
and Calamites below, which mean Permian, and in softer beds of sandstone
above—doubtless Triassic—impressions of fern fronds too indistinct for de-
termination.

In the roof shales of the old copper mines near Abiquiu plants are
abundant, but the number of species is small. Of these the most comnren
and conspicuous is an Ofozamites with broad truncated pinnules, which I
have called O. Macombii; another cyead less common is a Zamites (Z. occi-
dentalis Newb.), while twigs and cones of Pachyphyllum are occasionally
seen. At Los Bronces the number of species is much larger, and we find
among them several which occur in North Carolina, and one of those ob-
tained from Abiquiu (Otozamites Macombii). The Carolina species are Pe-
copteris bullatus Bunbury (Mertensides bullatus Fontaine), Pecopteris Julcatus
Emmons (Laccopteris Emmonsi Fontaine), and Tceniopteris magnifolia Rogers.
These indicate a parallelism between the plant-bearing beds of the Atlantic

GEOLOGICAL SKETCH. 15

Trias and those of New Mexico and Sonora, and go far to prove that all
our Triassic rocks which have yet yielded plants belong to the uppermost
division of the system.

In New Mexico there are at least two thousand feet of sandstones and
shales belonging to the Trias beneath the strata which contain the fossil plants
at the copper mines. Immediately above the latter lie the sandstones of
the Dakota group, the basal member of the Cretaceous system as repre-
sented in that region; so that we have proof that these plant beds form the
extreme upper part of the Trias. The lower beds of sandstone and the con-
glomerate which forms the base of the series in New Mexico and Arizona
may represent the lower portions of the Trias in the Old World, but unfor-
tunately no fossils have yet been obtained from them.

Many writers upon the Triassic beds of the West have ealled the whole
formation Jura-Trias, either under the impression that both systems were
represented in the group, or as a matter of precaution in case this should
be found to be true. There seems, however, to be no good reason for think-
ing that the series of rocks which I have described represents the Jurassic
of Europe. Another set of beds overlying the Triassic and underlying
the Dakota sandstones occur in Utah, Colorado, and Wyoming, and are
proved by their fossils to be Jurassic. But these beds wedge out toward
the south, and I have been unable to find any traces of them south of En-
chanted Springs, near the lower line of Colorado. They consist of—

(1) Gray earthy limestone with marine Jurassic mollusks, best shown in
Wyoming and Utah.

(2) Light sandy and gypsiferous strata which succeed the limestone to-
ward the south, and

(3) Alternations of reddish sandstones and shales—fresh-water beds, con-
taining unios and saurian bones—the Atlantosaurus beds of Marsh.

On this series rest the Dakota sandstones, and below it are the red sand-
stones and conglomerates of the Trias.

io eel aes. ek Sw sae

Be Re dl a Ree CRE on trie
ii isk te a. iowa
Bris eral Sava me es ah ieee Ge
Peal gees Sodas Sey ste ee Bee etl ee
ee iy, oir a’ Sots js yess ae esi ies
OPTRA pe a
sE ade, Oh ery ‘a htop ys ta eee

ark es ° la At ek
ae 4 ' Bree
aver j » é Neale eee
uy boi bee) lh ay wena a
“a i i ie 7
, i) Poe
- ’ 4

Velie aimat es

nae Yer 'S be Be 4 ph wh es
a ‘a Je 44 is <ite eal

ea: es :
Meare svt tg yi ne 2 rons a
a eae eo .
Bee

FOSSIL FISHES OF THE TRIASSIC ROCKS OF NEW JERSEY AND
THE CONNECTICUT VALLEY.

MON XIV——2

FOSSIL FISHES.

The fishes of our Triassic rocks, though so far as yet known repre-
senting but six genera and about twenty-five species, are locally very
numerous and are found in many localities. They were among the first
fossils which attracted the attention of American geologists, and were re-
ferred to by Mitchill, De Kay, and Hitchcock half a century ago. Some
imperfect specimens, obtained in the Connecticut Valley, near Amherst,
were sent by the latter to Professor Agassiz when he was publishing his
great work on fossil fishes. He figured and described two species, one of
which he referred to the genus Palwoniscus and named P. fultus; the other
he considered a Hurynotus and called it F. tenuiceps. About this time Mr.
W. C. Redfield, of New York, began the study of these fishes. In con-
nection with his son, Mr. J. H. Redfield, he published many notices of them
during the succeeding twenty years. The first formal description of any
of them was ina paper read by Mr. J. H. Redfield before the Lyceum of
Natural History of New York, December 12, 1836, and subsequently pub-
blished.’ It contains figures and descriptions of two species, Catopterus
gracilis and Palconiscus latus, the former being made the type of a new
genus. In 1841 Mr. W. C. Redfield read before the Yale Natural History
Society a paper entitled “ Short Notices of American Fossil Fishes.” This
contains descriptions of five species of Pal«oniscus, three of which were then
for the first time characterized, viz: P. fultus Ag., P. latus J. H. R., P.
macropterus W. C. R, P. Agassizii W. C. R., and P. ovatus W. C. R.; also,

‘Anna's Lyccum Nat. Hist. N. Y., pt. 7, vol. 4, 1848, p. 38.

20 TRIASSIC FISHES AND PLANTS.

four species of Catopterus were described, viz: C. gracilis J. H. R., C. ma-
crurus W.C. R, C. anguilliformis W. C. R., and C. parvulus W. C. Rt

In 1854 Mr. J. H. Redfield read to the Association of American
Geologists and Naturalists a paper entitled “A Catalogue of the Fossil
Fishes of the United States as far as Known, with Descriptions of Those
Found in the New Red Sandstone.” In this paper four species of Catopterus
and nine species of Palconiscus were enumerated; of the latter four, viz,
P. clupeiformis, P. rostratus, P. tenuis, and P. parvus, had not been before de-
scribed. This report has never been published, because, as I was informed
by Mr. W. C. Redfield, it was agreed between Professor Agassiz and himself
that the whole subject should be reviewed in a joint monograph. Unfortu-
nately this was not done, and the death of Mr. Redfield in 1857 prevented
further publication of the large amount of valuable information which he
had acquired on this subject.

In 1847 Sir Charles Lyell published a paper* on the Coal Field of
Eastern Virginia, in which he gave some notes on the fossil fishes he ob-
tained there, with two beautiful plates, drawn by Joseph Dinkel. These
notes also include the results of an examination of these fishes by Sir Philip
Egerton, who reported (1) that the fish described by W. C. Redfield under
the name of Catopterus macrurus should be considered the representative of
anew genus “ because it was homocereal,” and he called it Dictyopyge ; (2)
that the fishes from the American Trias referred by Agassiz and Redfield to
Paleoniscus were generically distinct, and he named the new genus which
he created to receive them Ischypterus, because of the great strength of the
fin rays. Sir Philip Egerton also decided that some of the specimens of
Catopterus brought back by Sir Charles Lyell were different from C. gracilis,
and suggested the name of C. Redfieldi for one of them.

A portion of the middle of the body of a large fish with quadrangular
seales which Sir Charles Lyell brought from Blackheath, Va., he referred to
the genus Tetragonolepis, but on scarcely satisfactory grounds.

Taking up the study of the fishes of the Trias soon after coming to New
York in 1866, [had excavations made at Boonton, N. J., from which many

hundreds of fishes were obtained, in circumstances which apparently throw

1Am. Jour. Sei., vo]. 41, 1841, p. 24.
?Quart. J ur. Geol. Soe, London, vol. 3, 1847, p. 261.

FOSSIL FISHES. Zl

some light on the manner in which they were entombed. This locality is
near the western margin of the Triassic area where strata of shaly sand-
stone rest upon coarse conglomerate, showing the different conditions which
prevailed at the same locality within a limited interval of time. Certain
layers of the shales are crowded with fishes, a slab a yard square carrying
sometimes a half dozen or more. Some of these are dismembered, consist-
ing of a shapeless aggregate of scales and bones, but most are nearly per-
fect; and the number found at about the same level, with their perfection
of preservation, seem to show that the generation inhabiting that portion
of the Triassic basin at a certain time were somewhat suddenly killed and
sunk to the bottom, where they were soon covered with the accumulating
sediment and were thus preserved. The layers of the shale which contain
the largest number of fishes are impregnated with bituminous matter, burn-
ing for a time when thrown into the fire, and when struck with a hammer
giving off a peculiar odor. Similar fish beds are known to exist at Pomp-
ton, Plainfield, and beneath the trap of the Palisades above Hoboken, and
it seems probable that the great mortality which strewed the bottom of the
basin at times with dead fishes was the result of some phase of the voleanic
action which poured out the trap masses of the Palisades and Newark
Mountains.

Fishes seem to be equally abundant in the Connecticut River basin.
At Durham, Conn., and Turner's Falls, Mass., they are particularly numerous
and well preserved, while they have also been obtained at Middletown, Sud-
bury, Chicopee, Amherst, and Hadley’s Falls. Collections made at all these
localities have been studied by me, and among them I have identified with
more or less confidence about twenty-five species. ‘To the list of the species
of Catopterus and Ischypterus enumerated by the Messrs. Redfield perhaps
as many more have been added, and two genera which they do not seem
to have met with, viz, Dipluwrus Newb. and Ptycholepis Ag. These will be
found figured and described in another part of this memoir. In the revision
of the group of fishes studied by the Messrs. Redfield access has been
had to the specimens left by Mr. W. C. Redfield, most of which were do-
nated to the Peabody Museum at Yale College. The collection contains
many types of the species described by the Messrs. Redfield, but unfortu-

22 TRIASSIC FISHES AND PLANTS.

nately not fully labeled. It is also to be regretted that some of their types
and many specimens which they had studied and labeled perished in the
destruction by fire of the geological collection belonging to the New York
Lyceum of Natural History.

I give below a list of the fishes of the North American Trias as far as
yet made out. It probably includes nearly all the species which lived in the
water basins from which the Triassic strata were deposited in New Jersey
and the Connecticut Valley, but in the southern extension of the Triassic
belt some new things are sure yet to be found. No one has given special
attention to the fishes of the Richmond coal basin or those of North Caro-
lina, but the few specimens which have been incidentally collected indicate
considerable differences between the fish fauna of this region and that which
I have studied farther north. By far the most common fish in the Rich-
mond basin is Dictyopyge macrura Egt. (Catopterus macrurus W.C. R.),
which I have not found elsewhere. With this are associated fragments of
some other genera and species which have not yet been described. One of
these is apparently a Dictyopyge considerably larger than D. macrura, and
distinguished from it by having the flattened fin rays ornamented with raised
lines. One new genus of which I have seen fragments is strongly marked
by its relatively large, rounded, and ornamented opercula.

In the Triassic strata of the Far West very few fish remains have been
found. Mr. KE. E. Howell obtained from the Trias in southeastern Utah
some detached ganoid scales, and recently Mr. R. C. Hills found at San
Miguel, in southwestern Colorado, near the middle of the Triassic series of
that region, several specimens of a Catopterus hardly distinguishable from
C. gracilis, but. too imperfectly preserved for accurate determination. _Prob-
ably when the calcareous beds which represent the Trias in Idaho shall be
more carefully examined they will be found to contain the remains of fishes
which may be expected to resemble those of the Muschelkalk of Europe.

FOSSIL FISHES.

23

LIST OF TRIASSIC FISHES.

Dipiurus longicaudatus Newb.
Ptycholepis Marshti Newb.
Dietyopyge macrura Kgt.

Acentrophorus Chicopensis, n. sp.

Catopterus Re.lfieldi Egt.
gracilis W. C. R.

anguiliiformis W. C. BR.

parvulus W.C. BR.

minor, 1. Sp.

ornatus, Nl. Sp.
Ischypterus fultus Ag. sp.

macropterus W. ©, R.

ovatus W. C. R.
Agassizii W. C. R.

Ischypterus latus J. H. BR.

micropterus, n. Sp.
alatus, 0. Sp.
modestus, D. Sp.
parvus W.C. R.
Marshii W.C. R.
minutus, D. Sp.
Braunii, n. sp.
robustus, 0. Sp.
tenwiceps Ag.
elegans, 1. Sp.
lenticularis, n. Sp.
lineatus, 1. sp.
gigas, D. Sp.

DESCRIPTIONS OF GENERA AND SPECIES.

SUBCLASS GANOIDET.

ORDER LEPIDOSTEID®.

FAMILY LEPIDOTIDZ.
Genus ISCHYPTERUS Egerton.

Under the names of Palconiscus fultus and Eurynotus tenuiceps two
species of this genus were described by Agassiz.‘ Previous to that time a
specimen had been sent from Massachusetts to M. Alexandre Brongniart, at
Paris; this was examined by De Blainville, and was referred to his genus
Palcothrissum, for which Palwoniscus was afterwards substituted. All these
specimens lacked important parts, were distorted and imperfectly preserved;
hence it is perhaps not surprising that their anatomical structure was misun-
derstood, and they were included in genera to which they do not belong.

Jurynotus is a paleoniscoid genus, restricted to the Lower Carbonifeious
strata, having a different arrangement of the head plates, a high, broad
dorsal, and a very heterocercal tail; features in which it differs essentially
from the fishes now under consideration. Palaoniscus also has been clearly
shown by Dr. R. H. Traquair, in his admirable studies of the family,” to be as
distinctly separated from them. In 1841 Mr. W.C. Redfield published an
article with the title “Short Notices of American Fossil Fishes.”* In this
paper he describes five species of Palwoniscus, accepting the classification
of Agassiz, who had referred them to this genus. These were P. fultus Ag.,

Poissons Fossiles (vol. 2, p. 43, pl. 8, figs. 4, 5; p. 159, pl. 14e, figs. 4, 5, 1833-1843.)

?Quart. Jour, Geol. Soe., London, vol, 33, 1877, pp. 548-578, and Trans, Roy, Soc., Edinburgh, vol.
29, pp. 343-391.

Am. Jour, Sci., vol. 41, 1841, p. 24.

21

FOSSIL FISHES. 25

P. latus J. A. R, P. macropterus W. C.R, P. Agassizii W C. R., and P. ovatus
W.C.R. Mr. Redfield in this article pointed out some of the peculiarities of
this group of fishes, and suggested that they should perhaps be separated
from Palaoniscus.

This was subsequently done by Sir Philip Egerton,’ who, on account of
the great strength of the fin rays, named the genus which he created to
receive them Jschypterus. Unfortunately no detailed description of the
anatomical characters of the genus was given by Sir Philip Egerton, as
he scarcely had sufficient material for the purpose. This is much to be
regretted, as with his great knowledge, if he could have made a careful study
of good specimens, he would have been led to discover and report the true
relationship of the group. This is plainly with Lepidotus and its allies, and
not with Palwoniscus, as supposed by Agassiz; an error into which he was
led by the imperfect preservation of the fishes he examined, none of which
showed any details of the all-important structure of the head. The head
was small, and all the bones were delicate; hence the almost universal de-
ficiences in this part of their structure when fossilized. Among the many
hundred specimens of Ischypterus I have passed in review I have found a
few in which nearly all the details of the bony structure were preserved,
and I am able to describe this more fully than has before been possible, and
to deduce from it with certainty the zoological relations of this group of fishes.
Where distinctly visible the structure demonstrates an intimate relationship
with Lepidotus, Dapedius, and Pholidophorus, but most of all with Semionotus.
Here the affinity is so close, that it is probable that both Agassiz and Sir
Philip Egerton would have united schypterus with that genus if the material
at their command had been more abundant and better. In an examination
of nearly all the specimens of Ischypterus contained in the museums of the
United States and a considerable number of individuals of Semionotus I have
been unable to detect any characters by which they can be distinguished.
The outlines, size, and proportions of the body are essentially alike ; both are
elliptical or ovoid, with a relatively small, pointed head, and weak, scarcely
lobate tail. The positions, form, and structure of the fins are so nearly alike
that the differences can hardly be regarded as of more than specific value.

' Quart. Jour, Geol, Soe. London, vol. 6, 1850, p. 8.

26 TRIASSIC FISHES AND PLANTS.

The fin rays are few, broad, and undivided below in both; the anterior rays are
characteristically strong; the fulera few, strong, acute, and closely appressed;
in both a row of large, sometimes erect and pointed scales marks the line
between the head and the dorsal fin. The obliquity of the posterior ex-
tremity of the body is about the same; the mouth is small, the mandibles
and maxillaries are weak, the premaxillaries united in a uniform arch, set
with an even row of small, abruptly pointed teeth, as are also the max-
illaries and mandibles; and the eye is placed above the posterior margin of
the mouth. The divisions and the forms of the head plates are apparently
the same, though I have not been able to verify by personal examination
the descriptions of the head plates of Semionotus given by European authors.
I can not, therefore, assert that Semionotus and Ischypterus should be united.
I call attention, however, to the close, general, and special resemblances
between them, and leave to those who may have better opportunities for
studying the structure of Semionotus the decision of the question."

The specific division of the great group of fishes representing the
genus Ischypterus obtained from the Upper Triassic rocks of New Jersey
and the Connecticut Valley is a matter of no little difficulty. The deserip-
tions given by Mr. W. C Redfield in the article mentioned above are ex-
ceedingly brief, and in the absence of the type specimens, which cannot
now be certainly identified, it often becomes a matter of much doubt as to
what were the fishes to which he applied these names. Only one has yet
been figured, Ischypterus latus J. H. R., and this lacks both head and tail.
In examining the collection of Triassic fishes left by Mr. W. C. Redfield,
now at Yale College, and to which I have had access through the courtesy
of Prof. O. C. Marsh, I found many without labels, and those which were
named were in some cases so imperfectly preserved, that it was not easy to
use them as guides in classifying the much larger number of specimens

contained in the cabinet of Columbia College.

‘Since the above notes were written two interesting papers have been published on the Triassic fishes
of the Old World, viz, ‘‘On the Remains of Fishes from the Keuper of Warwick,” by E. T. Newton,
Rev. P. B, Brodie, and Edward Wilson, Quar. Jour. Geol. Soc., August, 1887, and ‘On Two New Lepi-
dotoid Ganoids from the Early Mesozoic Deposits of Orange Free State, South Africa,” by A. Smith
Woodward, Quart. Jour. Geol, Soc. London, May, 1833. In both papers these fishes are described as
species of Semionotus, which, if found in our Triassic rocks would be unhesitatingly referred to Ischyp-
terns.

FOSSIL FISHES. af

On the following pages, so far as I have been able, I have enumerated
and defined all the species of the genus which have come under my obser-
vation. Ideem it necessary to say, however, that future observations will
probably diminish rather than increase the number of forms in which the
differences should be given specific value. For example, J. alatus may
prove to be only a variety of /. lineatus and I. modestus a phase of I. elegans;
but with marked differences and without connecting links, so far as yet ob-
served, it has seemed to me hardly justifiable without further evidence of
identity to unite them under a common name.

IscHyprerus ovatus W. C. R.
Pleehiea
Palwoniscus ovatus W. C. R., Am. Jour. Sci., vol. 41, 1841, p. 26.

The only published description of this species is that cited above. It
reads as follows:

>

Paleoniscus ovatus W. C. R.—Wide or round-shaped Palzoniscus. This spe-
cies is shorter than P. Agassizii, and exceeds all the known American species in the
comparative width or roundness of its form, and is also remarkable for the large size
of its scales. It is of rare occurrence, and, owing probably to its great thickness, is
seldom obtained in perfect form. This fossil also exhibits the spine-like erections of
the dorsal scales which have been noticed above.

Found at Westfield and Middlefield, Conn.; Sunderland, Mass., and Boonton, N. J.

In the manuscript report of Mr. J. H. Redfield the following notes on
this species appear :

Fish ovate; head rather small and narrow; body widening rapidly from the head
to the dorsal and ventral fins, expanding as far as the ventral fins, from which point
the form gradually narrows to the pedicel of the tail. Seales large, anterior ones con-
centrically striate, those of the dorsal ridge pointed and elevated as in P. tenwiceps;
pectoral fins small, comparatively slender; ventrals small; dorsal large, rays strong;
anal not well observed. This is the broadest and most ovate species of Palwoniscus

that is known, and perhaps ought to be referred to a separate genus. In the size of
the scales it resembles P. Agassizii, but its form will readily distinguish if.

In the collections made at Turner’s Falls, Mass.,,and Boonton, N. J., I
find a large species of Ischypterus, which agrees very well with the descrip-
tions given above. The fish reaches a length of from ten to twelve inches,
is ovoid in form, with a breadth at the dorsal fin of from four to five inches;

28 TRIASSIC FISHES AND PLANTS.

all the fins are quite strong, and the scales are large, broad, and thick. The
concentric lines upon their borders, mentioned by Mr. J. H. Redfield, are
not peculiar to this species, but are more or less distinctly visible in all the
members of the genus in certain states of preservation. It is most notice-
able where the scales are partially decomposed and where they were of
considerable thickness. In outline the fishes of this species resemble some
individuals of Ischypterus tenuiceps, but they are considerably larger, the
scales are also relatively larger and more quadrate; the arch of the back
is usually regular, and the outline is comparatively smooth, never showing
the extreme development of the dorsal scales which is so conspicuous a feat-
ure in the older individuals of I. tenuiceps.

Judging from some of the specimens obtained from Turner's Falls, I
am inclined to think that this is the fish which is figured by Sir Charles
Lyell in his paper on the Virginian coal field and referred to by Sir Philip
Egerton as a species of Tetragonolepis. In that specimen nothing is shown
but a portion of the side near the head, without tail or fins. If the fins
had been present they would probably have shown the great development
of the fulera, which is characteristic of Ischypterus and wanting in Tetrago-
volepis. This I infer from the facts that no other traces of the latter genus
have been found in the Triassic rocks of North America, and the scales on
the sides of the large and broad species of Ischypterus could hardly be dis-
tinguished from those of a corresponding part of the body in Tetragonolepis.
With precisely similar scales, however, we have in several instances the .
characteristic fins of Ischypterus. No such specimens were contained in
the collections made by Sir Charles Lyell in America, and the inference of

Sir Philip Egerton was therefore a natural one, though probably erroneous.
Iscuyprerus Marsnir W. ©. BR.
Pl. Il, Fig. 1.

Fishes twelve inches or more in length by three or four inches in breadth;
body fusiform in outline; head conical, obtuse, contained four and one-half
times in the entire length; fins strong but relatively short; anterior base of
dorsal midway between muzzle and tip of tail; fulera strong and short; rays

FOSSIL FISHES, 29

eight (?); caudal fin strongly forked, three inches wide in fish twelve inches
long, unsymmetrical, upper lobe longest; scales universally large and thick;
those of dorsal line less strongly spined than in other large species of the
genus; boat-shaped scale covering anterior base of dorsal fin relatively small,
rounded before, pointed behind, not notched; rows of scales on sides more
oblique than in other large species; those on the middle and anterior
portions of the body square or oblong, slightly higher than broad.

This large and fine species was named by W. C Redfield, but was never
described. It is referred to in his paper,’ and I find a specimen from Sun-
derland, Mass., bearing this name in the Redfield collection at Yale College:
In pursuance of my plan to secure to W. C. Redfield all the fruit of his labor
in this field [have adopted it, and now supplement the name with a detailed
description.

So far as known this species only occurs at Sunderland, Mass., where
a number of fine specimens have been procured, one of the best of which
may be seen in the American Museum of Natural History, New York, to
which institution, with many other fossil fishes, it was presented by the late
Robert L. Stuart. This, like a number of others which I have seen, has
a length of about twelve inches, but the species probably attained somewhat
greater dimensions. The body is broadly or more narrowly fusiform, the
widest portion being midway between the dorsal fin and occiput. In general
form it resembles Ischypterus Agassizii, but attains greater dimensions and
may be distinguished at a glance by the larger size of its scales and the more
oblique position of the rows on the sides

In general aspect this fish has much resemblance to some species of
Lepidotus, all of which are characterized by their relatively large and thick
scales. The resemblance of Ischypterus to Lepidotus has been referred to,
and it is evident that they are closely allied, but as a whole the species of
the former genus are smaller and are distinguished by the more salient row
of spiny scales along the dorsal line, and by a greater prolongation of the
upper lobe of the tail.

1Proc, Am. Assoc, Ady, Sci., Albany meeting, 1856, pt. 2, p. 188,

30 TRIASSIC FISHES AND PLANTS.

Iscnyprerus Acassizu W. C. R.
a Ba 0 om Ch rea
Palwoniscus Agassizii W. ©. R., Am, Jour. Sci., vol. 41, 1841, p. 26.

The first notice of this species was given by W. C. Redfield in the
article cited above. The description which he there published is as follows:

Its length in the specimens hitherto obtained varies from seven and one-half to
ten inches, and its width from three to four inches. The fins, with their armatures and
insertions, are also of more remarkable thickness than in the species already noticed.
The large scales or plates which belong to the anterior portion of the dorsal line are
commonly found doubled together at their lateral edges by the incumbent pressure,
which gives them the appearance of short spines or flattened rays; and hence these are
sometimes mistaken for aa anterior comb-like dorsal.

Mr. J. H. Redfield, in the manuscript report to which reference has
been so frequently made, adds the following notes upon this species :

Head narrow and pointed, scales large and smooth, sometimes with faint concen-
tric strie; those of the anterior portion of the dorsal ridge very much elongated,
strong and pointed, and apparently erectile; when in an erect position much resembling
rays, and giving the appearance of acomb-like dorsal fin; back arched, but not so
abruptly as in P. tenuiceps. The widest portion of the fish is found just anterior to the
ventral fin; pectoral fin moderate; anterior raylets rather short; primary rays six or
eight; ventral fins small, anterior raylets about ten; primary rays about five or six;
dorsal fins large, triangular, preceded by erect, pointed scales; anterior raylets very
long, twelve or more in number; primary eight to ten; anal fin large, but not so much
elongated as in P. tenuiceps or P. fultus; anterior raylets very strong, about twelve in
number, primary rays six to eight; tail forked, lobes acute, anterior raylets rather
stout, rays of lower lobe much stouter than those of upper; length, seven to ten inches;
breadth, three to three and one-half inches. Occurs at Sunderland, Mass , Westfield
and Middlefield, Conn., Pompton and Boonton, N. J.

Among the fishes obtained at Boonton, N. J., are a dozen or more of
unusually large size, and manifestly distinct from the many small fishes
with which they are associated. These I have supposed to be the fishes to
which W. GC. Redfield gave the above name, and indeed there are no others
found at that locality to which his description is at all applicable.

These fishes are from ten to twelve inches in length and from three to
three and a half inches wide. The head is conical and pointed, and in an
individual twelve inches long it has a length of three inches; the back is uni-
formly and rather strongly arched anterior to the dorsal fin ; the row of dorsal
scales is strong, though usually depressed, and when erected would present

FOSSIL FISHES. St

the appearance of a comb-like crest described by W. C. Redfield. This row
of scales is, however, less strongly developed than in /schypterus tenuiceps,
and the arch of the back does not show the hump which is so characteristic
of that species; the fins are very strong; the fulcra of the dorsal and anal
fins unusually broad and long, forming arches nearly half an inch wide at
base, curving gracefully backward to a point; the anal fin when appressed
reaches quite to the base of the caudal; the tail when expanded is three
inches wide at its extremity; the scales of the sides are large and thick, |
those near the head square or oblong.

I have seen no such fishes as these anywhere except at Boonton. At
Durham we find a species of Ischypterus of about the same size, but con-
siderably broader—the mature form of Ischypterus micropterus N. At Sun-
derland occurs another species (Z. Marshii) which in form and general aspect
resembles those under consideration, but it is narrower, with less strong
dorsal and anal fins, with thicker and relatively broader scales, which form
more oblique rows on the sides. For these reasons I have thought it wise
to regard it as distinct.

IscHYPTERUS MICROPTERUS, Nl. Sp.
Pl. IV, Figs. 1, 2; Pl. XU, Fig. 2.

Fishes of medium or large size, five to ten inches long by one and a
half to three and a half inches wide; form conical, greatest breadth at pec-
toral fins, thence tapering uniformly to tail; back and abdomen about
equally arched; head conical, acute, contained four and a half times in total
length, nearly horizontal and straight below, rapidly sloped above; muzzle
prolonged, acute ; mouth very small; maxillary and mandible slender, teeth
small, conical, acute; cranial plates granulated ; operculum narrow; anterior
margin vertical, posterior rounded, supraclavicles and clavicles slender;
scales smooth, polished, oblong, twice as high as long on the sides near
the head, rhomboidal on posterior portions of sides and tail; scales of ante-
rior dorsal line about fifteen in number, rounded and emarginate at base,
abruptly narrowed to smooth acute spines above; fins all relatively small
and weak; anterior base of dorsal midway between tip of tail and extremity
of muzzle; fulera eight, relatively small; fin rays eight, narrow, delicate;

82 TRIASSIC FISHES AND PLANTS.

large scales of posterior dorsal line eight, elliptical before, elongate and
spiny behind, running into fulera of upper margin of dorsal, which are ten
in number, eight beyond scaled extremity of body, all slender and rod-
like; caudal fin narrow and weak, oblique, upper lobe longest, rays fifteen,
slender; fulcra of lower margin fifteen; anal fin narrow, just reaching base
of caudal, rays eight, fulera ten.

The most striking diagnostic characters of this species are its pointed
rostrate, depressed muzzle; conical narrow head, horizontal below; the wedge-
shaped outline of the body, which is widest near the head; the small and
delicate fins, and the narrow and oblique tail. The largest specimen which
I have is ten and a half inches long by three and a half inches wide, the
smallest five and a half by one and a half inches; but I have seen one speci-
men which shows distinctly all the characters of the species, and yet is
only about three and a half inches long.

This is the most common species of Ischypterus at Durham, Conn., but
I have not certainly identified it elsewhere. S. W. Loper has good speci-
mens in his cabinet, and has supplied a fine series of different ages to the
cabinets of Yale and Columbia.

The figures given on Pl. IV represent old and half-grown individ-
uals; that on Pl. XII, Fig. 2, is still younger.

IscHYPTERUS TENUICEPS Ag., sp.
Pi. V, Figs. 1, 2,3; Pl. VII, Fig. 3.

Eurynotus tenuiceps Ag., Poiss. Foss. vol. 2, p. 159, Pl. 14c, Figs. 4, 5; E. Hitchcock,
Geol. Mass., vol. 2, p. 459; Pl. 29, Figs.1, 2.

This species has been more fully illustrated than any other from the.

American Trias. Two figures of it are given by Agassiz in his Poissons
Fossiles (loc. cit.); two are given by Professor Hitchcock in his quarto Re-
port on the Geology of Massachusetts; one in Emmons’s Geological Report
of the Midland Counties of North Carolina, Pl. IX (reproduced in his
American Geology, pt. 6), a wood-cut probably of this species in Em-
mons’s Manual of Geology, page 188, andin American Geology, pt. 6, page
144; also, three figures of it are given on Pl. [Xa of the latter work. Of
these last cited figures only one has the normal form of the species, the

aa ae

FOSSIL FISHES. 33

others being distorted and narrowed, but the originals were all from the
same place, Turner’s Falls, where this is the most abundant species, and
they show the peculiar erect, thickened dorsal scales, which are not devel-
oped to the same degree in any other. Unfortunately all the figures of
I. tenuiceps yet published are taken from imperfect specimens. That on
Pl. IX of the American Geology, pt. 6, represents the posterior half of the
body fairly well, but the head is a shapeless mass, and the arch of the back
is only partially shown.

As mentioned in the remarks on the genus Ischypterus, the preserva-
tion of the head is so generally incomplete that we must conclude its bony
structure was delicate and largely reénforced by cartilage. Out of the large
number of specimens which I have, however, a few give the outlines of the
head and much of its structure with considerable accuracy. From these
we learn that it was conical, rapidly sloping from the high nuchal arch, and
from the smallness of the mouth, pointed at the muzzle. The general form
was ovate, in that respect resembling Ischypterus ovatus W. C. R., but the
species may be distinguished generally at a glance by the high, thickened,
and often obtuse scales which crown the humped back. The length of this
species in mature individuals is eight inches and the breadth immediately
behind the head is two and a half to three inches. The dorsal scales are
often strangely thickened and distorted in the nuchal region, where they
are sometimes more than half an inch long, clavate and blunt. This I was
at first disposed to regard as the result of pyritous concretionary distortion,
but I have seen it in so large a number that I am compelled to regard it as
a specific character. In some cases the form of every scale of the row is
observable; it is seen that those immediately back of the head are much
elongated, and the terminal spine is depressed backward, so that the scale is
blunt and club-shaped. Possibly this is the result of disease, but if so, it
attacked a majority of individuals. More likely it is a character developed
by age and only fully shown by those that were quite old at the time of
their entombment. It is possible also that it is a sexual character; but, by
whatever cause produced, it is a mark by which, when present, the species
can be immediately recognized.

MON XIY——3

34 TRIASSIC FISHES AND PLANTS.

This species is found much more abundant at Sunderland, Mass,
~ than elsewhere. Probably more than half of the individuals which have
been taken from the Triassic rocks there belong to it. A few individuals
have been obtained from Durham and Boonton which were regarded by
W. C. Redfield as specifically identical with these. Of this there may be
some doubt, since nowhere else are fishes found which have the back so
highly arched immediately behind the head, and set with the long, divergent,
acute or clavate scales.

The figures given on P]. V represent two old individuals and one very
young one. Fig. 3 of Pl. VII represents a mature but not old individual.

IscHYPTERUS FULTUS Ag. sp.
PAV, ic: 22S Valerio al.
Paleoniscus fultus Ag., Poiss. Foss., vol. 2, p. 43, Pl. VIII, Figs. 4, 5.

Paleoniscus fultus W.C. R., Am. Jour. Sei., vol. 41, 1841, p. 20.
Ischypterus fultus Egerton, Quart. Jour. Geol. Soc. London, vol. 3, 1847, p. 277.

T'wo very imperfect fishes from Sunderland, Mass., both wanting the
head and one the tail, served as a basis for Agassiz’s description of this
species. All that can be said about them is that they represent one of the
smaller and narrower species of the genus Ischypterus, as defined by Sir
Philip Egerton. But no one could positively assert, even with the speci-
mens in hand, that they belonged to one or another of several species found
in the Connecticut Valley and New Jersey. We are, however, better in-
formed in regard to the fish accepted by the Messrs. Redfield as represent-
ing the species J. fultus. Mr. W. C. Redfield, in the article so frequently
referred to,’ makes the following remarks upon this species:

Paleeoniscus fultus Ag., the specimen figured by Professor Agassiz is destitute of
the dorsal and head, as well as the upper portion of the body. The length was prob-
ably four and a half inches; but this is often exceeded in other specimens. ‘The fins

and their bony insertions appear stouter than in P. latus, but less stout than in some
other species. Found at Westfield, Middlefield, and Durham, Conn., and Boonton, N. J.

In the report read before the American Association of Geologists and
Naturalists at New Haven, in 1845, by Mr. J. H. Redfield, I find the fol-
lowing description of this species :

Fish fusiform, head small, rather more than one-fifth of the whole length; back nearly
straight, but slightly arched; scales of medium size, often with concentric strie, which

a $$

1Am, Jour, Sci., vol, 41, p, 25.

FOSSIL FISHES. 35

are most apparent on the posterior edge; scales of the dorsal ridge pointed and erect-
ile, but in a much less degree than in Ischypterus tenuiceps; pectoral fins small, narrow,
and pointed; ventrals small, very narrow, and pointed; dorsal and anal fins both very
long, with the anterior raylets very strong and rather numerous; primary rays of anal
about seven, slender; anterior raylets about twelve, anterior raylets of dorsal about
fourteen ; tail forked, lobes more acute than in P. tenwiceps; accessary raylets long
and numerous; length five to seven inches, breadth one and a half to two and a quarter
inches. The specimens from which Agassiz constituted his Palwoniscus fultus were
so imperfect, that it is difficult to decide with certainty which of our specimens should
be referred to it. The character which he seized upon as its chief diagnostic, and on
which he founded its specific name, /ultus, viz, the extraordinary size of the anterior
raylets of the fins, exists in all the known American species of this genus. We are
not at all sure that we have rightly referred P. macropterus of W. C. R. to this species;
for the specimens figured by Agassiz are represented with dorsal and anal fins which
are far from having the length of these fins in P. macropterus. Those specimens were
evidently imperfect, and it is well known how easily the frail and carbonaceous rem-
nants of rays are detached from these fossils, sometimes leaving hardly a trace behind,
and it is very possible that these portions were broken in the specimens which were
figured by Agassiz. His nameof P. fultus should in justice to him be retained, and
since the long-pointed fins of the fish we have described above, strengthened as they
are by large anterior raylets, will render the term fullus quite applicable, we think it
advisable to restrict Agassiz’s name to this species, and suppress P. macropterus, This
species is characterized by the length of the dorsal and anal fins, which are even longer
than in P. tenuiceps, from which species it is also readily distinguished by its form, the
back not suddenly rising from the head as in that.

Among the fishes left by W. C. Redfield I find many which are labeled
Ischypterus fultus. Most of these are from Boonton, and it is repre-
sented by him as the most common species found there. The form is
rather narrow, the length from six to eight inches, the breadth never more
than two inches at the widest part, which is half way between the dorsal fin
and the head; the fins are relatively large; the tail is scarcely forked, but
rather scalloped, with a broad and shallow sinus; the head is depressed,
longer than wide, and about one-sixth of the entire length. From Durham
and Sunderland [ have specimens which I suppose must represent the fish
named P. fultus by Agassiz, for his specimens were derived from the latter
place. They are smaller than those from New Jersey, not over six inches
in length by one anda quarter inches in breadth. It is quite possible that
they represent a different species from that so common at Boonton, but that
can only be shown by more extensive comparisons than I have been able to
make,

36 TRIASSIC FISHES AND PLANTS.

The fish represented on Pl. VI, Fig. 2, is perhaps a fair example of
the species so common at Boonton, and which W. C. Redfield first described
as Palceoniscus macropterus. He afterward suppressed that name in deference
to Agassiz’s opinion that it was not different from those to which he had
given the name P. fultus. Pl. VII, Fig. 1, represents a smaller fish, of
which I have a large number of specimens, but I have considered these the
young of the larger form referred to above.

IscHYPTERUS ROBUSTUS, Nn. Sp.
Pl. VI, Fig. 1.

Fishes of medium or large size, eight inches or more in length by three
in breadth anterior to the dorsal fin; outline ovoid; head large, narrowed,
muzzle produced; dorsal fin very large, its anterior margin about the middle
of the entire length and nearly twice as far from the posterior scaled ex-
tremity of the body as from the head; fulera very numerous, strong, curved ;
rays eleven, very strong; caudal fin of moderate size, upper lobe longest;
anal of moderate size; ventrals inserted nearly opposite anterior margin of
dorsal; pectoral fins relatively long and broad; scales of dorsal line long,
forming a prominent crest; those of sides broad and thick.

This is a robust and coarsely organized fish, most nearly allied to
Ischypterus ovatus of Redfield, but distinguished by the great height,
breadth, and strength of the dorsal fin and its anterior position. The pec-
toral fins are also longer and broader than in any other species that I have
seen, The ventrals and anal are not well shown in the specimens before
me, but are apparently delicate; the caudal is relatively narrow, the lower
lobe nearly horizontal, the upper strongly elevated and produced.

The great height and breadth of the dorsal fin of this species bring it
closer to Semonotus than any other of its congeners, and there is little doubt
that if it had been found in the Mesozoic rocks of the Old World it would
have been referred to that genus; indeed, it is now difficult to say by what
characters it could be distinguished generically from some of the described
species of Semionotus. The line of spine-like dorsal scales is somewhat more
conspicuous, but this is only a matter of detail, since something of the kind

is seen in all the species of that genus with which I have compared it.

FOSSIL FISHES. oe

The scales of this species are relatively large and strong, and it is
evident that the fish was firmly and robustly organized; hence the name
eiven it.

Up to the present time I have seen but two or three specimens, and
these are all from Boonton, N. J.

The type is in the geological museum of Columbia College.

IscHYPTERUS ELEGANS, fl. Sp.
Pl. VIL, Fig. 2; Pl. X, Fig. 1; Pl. XIV, Figs. 1, 2.

Fishes small, length four to six inches, greatest breadth two inches;
length of head one to one and a quarter inches, contained four and a half
times in the entire length; body long-ovoid, elegantly arched; teeth rela-
tively large, conical, acute; scales smooth, about twenty in each vertical
row in broadest part of body, and thirty-two in a longitudinal series along
the median line to the base of the triangle which extends into the upper
lobe of the tail; erect, scales along dorsal line anterior to dorsal fin about
twenty, relatively small, first four or five unarmed; head small, pointed,
depressed ; fins small, weak.

This is the neatest species of the genus known to me; the curves of
the outline of the body are graceful, the scaling crowded but exact. In
form it most resembles J. lineatus, but is smaller and broader, the back
is more distinctly and regularly arched, and the scales are more numerous.
Another peculiar feature in the outline is the sudden contraction of the body
behind the dorsal fin. The scales are brilliantly polished, and each one
usually retains its position, so that the surface and outlines of the fish are
well preserved. From this it may be inferred that the scales were thicker
and more firmly united than in most species of the genus.

Collected at Boonton, N. J.; type specimens in the geological museum
of Columbia College.

IscuyPTERUS ALATUS, 1. Sp.
Pl, VII, Figs. 1, 2.

Fishes robust, eight inches in length by two and a half inches in great-
est breadth; head large, nearly one-third of entire length; fins relatively

38 TRIASSIC FISHES AND PLANTS.

large, rays and fulcra strong; dorsal fin set at the middle of the entire
length and midway between the occiput and base of caudal.

These fishes resemble most those I have called Ischypterus lineatus, and
they may prove to be only a well-marked variety of that species; but in
this group the body is somewhat narrower, the head is larger, the fins are
stronger and more conspicuous, and the dorsal is more posterior in position.

Up to the present time fishes having the characters given above have
only been found at Boonton, N. J. The types are in the geological museum
of Columbia College.

IscHYPTERUS MODESTUS, N. sp.
Pl. IX, Figs. 1, 3.

Fishes four to six inches in length by one and a half to two inches in
width ; outline of body long-ovoid, symmetrically arched above and below
anterior to dorsal and anal fins, rapidly contracted behind to half the ante-
rior breadth ; fins broad, strong, and rounded; dorsal fin exactly in middle
of entire length, opposite ventrals, fulcra strong, twelve in number, rays
eleven; tail relatively broad, slightly emarginate lobes nearly equal, rays
fifteen; anal rounded, not reaching base of caudal, fulera ten (?), rays
seven; head relatively large, one-fourth the entire length, rounded, some-
what obtuse; scales of dorsal line eighteen, of medium size, the one imme-
diately anterior to the dorsal fin shield-shaped, not emarginate behind ;
scales of sides relatively large and thick.

The fishes which have been included in this species are small, and have
the outlines of the body and fins rounded so as to give a smooth and gentle
aspect; the curyes of the body are all graceful and flowing; the back and
abdomen are uniformly arched to the dorsal and anal fins; behind these
the outline contracts rapidly by coneave curves until the width at the base
of the tail is less than half that of the anterior portion of the body.

The fishes most nearly allied to these are those which I have included
under the name J. elegans, and it is perhaps not certain they should be re-
garded as distinct. The head is, however, more obtuse and rounded, the
back less highly arched, and the fins apparently broader than in that species.
Also the scales are larger and thicker and those of the dorsal line stronger.

FOSSIL FISHES. 39

Collected at Boonton, N. J. Types in geological museum of Colum-
bia College.

IscHYPTERUS LENTICULARIS, D. sp.
Pl. X, Figs. 2, 3.

Fishes six to six and a half inches long by two to two and a half
inches wide; general outline lenticular; body widest at the middle, sloping
gently to the muzzle and tail; head pointed or obtuse, relatively large, a
little less than one-quarter of the entire length; fins all small and delicate
for the size of the fish; scales apparently thin, those of the dorsal line
relatively small.

Among several hundred fishes obtained at Boonton, N. J., there are a
number which correspond to the above description. They are relatively
broad and have a nearly symmetrical lenticular outline, the tail being small
and the body at its base only about one-third as wide as before the dorsal
fin. The fins are all small and weak, the fulera slender, nearly straight
and closely appressed. The general form is similar to that of I. ovatus,
but these fishes are not half the size of those to which W. C. Redfield
gave that name, and the whole structure is much more delicate. In J,
ovatus the scales of the dorsal line and sides would seem to have been very
thick and strong, the fins are large, the fulera strongly arched. The rela-
tion of these smaller oyoid fishes is rather with those to which I have given
the name J. elegans, and here the differences may be those of age or sex.
The group designated by the latter name consists of fishes which are much
smaller, often not much more than half the length and breadth, the lower
line of the body being nearly straight, the upper highly arched betore the
dorsal fin, concavely narrowed behind. Hence I have supposed that they
constitute a distinct species. |

Up to the present time I have seen no such fishes as those under con-
sideration at any other locality than at Boonton. There are none such in
all the collections made at Durham or Sunderland. In the first of these
localities I. micropterus apparently takes their place, but this, though like in
the small size of the fins, is distinguished by its depressed, pointed muzzle
and the cuneate outline of the body, which is widest immediately behind

40 TRIASSIC FISHES AND PLANTS

the head. At Sunderland, . tenuiceps is the prevailing species, and, though
often ovoid in outline, may always be distinguished by its humped back
and huge dorsal scales. he fins are also larger than those of either of the
above mentioned species.

IscHYPTERUS LINEATUS, N. Sp.
Pl. XI, Figs. 1, 2.

Fishes six to eight inches in length; outline when perfectly preserved
uniformly arched above and below ; head relatively large, contained about
four times in entire length, broadly conical in outline; fins all large;
fulera arched; scales of dorsal line spinous and strong, but less developed
than in J. tenuiceps; ribs and interspinous bones frequently preserved ;
‘scales on sides thick and strong, arranged in continuous rows from the head
backward, so as to give a lined appearance, which has suggested the spe-
cific name.

The fishes of this group are not easily separated from some of their
associates; some individuals resembling those of J. /enticularis; but in these
latter the outline is more symmetrical, the fins smaller, the scales more deli-
cate, particularly those of the dorsal line. On the other hand, they approach
through the smaller individuals the group to which I have given the name
of I. elegans; but these latter are smaller, the arch of the back is higher, the
head more depressed and acute, the fins and scales are more delicate.
Still another variety, including the narrower forms, comes nearer to I. fultus.
On the whole, however, this group of long ovoid fishes, from two to three
inches wide, are distinguishable at a glance from those which have the nar-
row lanceolate outlines of I. fultus, a fish which, though attaining the length
of six to seven inches, never passes a width of an inch and a half.

The fishes to which I have given the name of Jschyplerus alatus, and
have represented on Pl. VIII, are perhaps most like those under consid-
eration, and I hesitated long before separating them; indeed, it is probable
they will be found to run into each other, so that they must be regarded as
varieties of one species. By comparing the figures now given, however, it
will be seen that in the fishes I have called Z. alatus the fins are stronger,

and the dorsal is placed farther forward, its anterior margin being just mid-

FOSSIL FISHES. 41

way between the occiput and the base of the caudal fin. In the fishes
named J. lineatus the body is shorter and broader, the sides are more dis-
tinctly lined, and the dorsal fin is set. farther back.

Found in considerable numbers at Boonton, N. J., but up to the present
time not obtained from any other locality.

Type specimens in the geological museum of Columbia College.

IscHYPTERUS MACROPTERUS W.C. R.
Pl. XII, Fig. 1.

Fishes six to eight inches in length by one and a half to two and a half
inches broad, long-ovoid or fusiform in outline, symmetrically arched above
and below; head large, one quarter the entire length, conical in outline;
fins relatively large and strong; dorsal opposite the interval between the
anal and ventrals, point of insertion nearer to the extremity of the tail than
to the muzzle, fulera fifteen, rays eight ?; caudal broad, rays and fulera
strong; anal reaching to base of caudal, fulcra fifteen, rays ?; scales rela-
tively thick; ribs and spimous processes strong, and often distinctly showing
in the fossil state.

W. C. Redfield’ describes very briefly a species of Ischypterus, which
he calls Palwoniscus macropterus, in the following words :

Palwoniscus macropterus W. ©. R.—Long-finned Paleoniseus. This species is dis-
tinguished by the longitudinal extension of the dorsal and anal fins; which thus seem
to present « remote resemblance to the wings or forked tail of the common swallow.
Its length is commonly from five to seven inches, and its width from one and a‘half
to two inches.

Among the large number of fossil fishes which have been collected at
Boonton, N. J., the most abundant are such as were regarded by the Messrs.
Redfield as representing Agassiz’s species Ischypterus fultus. They are gen-
erally fusiform in outline, six to eight inches in length, and all have in marked
degree the strong fin-fulcra characteristic of the genus. There are, how-
ever, two groups of these fishes having about the same average size, one
more slender and coming nearer to those which, sent from the Connecticut.

Valley, were described by Agassiz with the name of Palwoniscus fultus; the

'Short Notices of American Fossil Fishes, Am, Jour, Sci., vol. 41, 1841, p. 2.

42 TRIASSIC FISHES AND PLANTS.

other group is much broader, the body being sometimes two and a half
inches high anterior to the dorsal fin. These were relatively flat fishes, while
the others were cylindrical or fusiform. As we compare most of the mem-
bers of the two groups they seem so unlike that no one would hesitate about
considering them distinct species, but it is also true that there are interme-
diate forms, which serve to connect these groups, and which are apparently
as near to one as to the other. Hence it is not easy to define accurately
either of the two species which W. C. Redfield has founded upon them. In
most cases, however, there need be no doubt, the fusiform and slender fish
standing for I. fultus, the broader one for I. macropterus. In my notes on
Ischypterus fultus I have further discussed this question, and have shown
how difficult it is to identify the species, which have been described very
briefly from imperfect material, and where the type specimens have been lost

sight. of.

Another reason why we may suspect that the fishes combined by

Agassiz and subsequently by Redfield under the name of J. fultus should
be referred to two species, is found in their distribution. As remarked else-
where, the individuals figured by Agassiz and taken as the types of his
species fultus, are so imperfect that they cannot certainly be identified with
any of the Triassic fishes obtained from the Connecticut Valley or from
New Jersey. I have even suspected that they were only mutilated speci-
mens of the most common speices, I. tenuiceps, found at Sunderland, where
Agassiz’s fishes were obtained; but oceasionally a narrow, fusiform, and
smaller fish is met with at Sunderland and Turner's Falls, which may be
the same with those figured by Agassiz. Whether this is identical with
any of the fishes found in New Jersey is yet uncertain, because the
material we now have for comparison is inadequate; but if identical with
either of the New Jersey forms it is with the narrower one, which was
adopted by W. C. Redfield as the representative of the species J. fultus.
Up to the present time none of the broader fishes which I have taken as
representing Nedfield’s species or variety, Z. macropterus, have been found
the Connecticut Valley; a fact which justifies the inference that these in
closely allied forms are specifically distinct.

pfeil, tent ha

FOSSIL FISHES. 43

IscHyPTERUS BRAUN, 0. sp.
Pl. XII, Fig. 3; Pl. XIII, Figs. 1, 2, 2a.

Fishes three to five inches in length by one to one and a half inches
broad; outline long-elliptical; body compressed; head relatively large,
contained three to three and a half times in total length; teeth large,
pointed, acute; cranial bones granulated; operculum semicircular, large ;
preoperculum long-elliptical, having much the form of the operculum, but
very much smaller; fins small, with delicate fulera and rays; dorsal and
anal placed far back, dorsal midway between occiput and extremity of tail,
very long from front to rear, fulcra small, rays ten; anal reaching back to
or beyond base of caudal, fulera eight (?), rays five; jointed rays of caudal
fin fifteen; scales rhomboidal or square, more uniform in size than any
other species known, number along lateral line thirty-three, in vertical rows
sixteen; scales of dorsal line rounded before, pointed or short-spined
behind.

This species is of peculiar interest as coming from the base of the
Triassic rocks of New Jersey, from a horizon probably several thousand
feet lower than that of the Boontor specimens, which are from near the top
of the series. It may be distinguished from all other known species by the
uniformity in the size of the scales and by the posterior position of the
dorsal fin. The armature of the dorsal line is also less strong and con-
spicuous than in most of the species of the genus; in this respect it is inter-
mediate between the strongly spined species of Ischypterus, such as I. tenuiceps
and those which have been grouped in the genus Acentrophorus by Dr.
Traquair, of which we have an example in A. chicopensis, described in this
memoir. In that fish all of the median scales of the dorsal line anterior to
the dorsai fin are unarmed.

The only locality from which fishes of the present species have been
obtained is Weehawken, N. J. Here, beneath the trap of the Palisades, is
a stratum cf highly metamorphosed slate which was once a bituminous
shale, but which has been baked by the effusion of the great mass of molten
matter above it; the fishes are found in this slate. In some layers it also

44 TRIASSIC FISHES AND PLANTS.

contains great numbers of bivalve crustaceans (Lstheria), which would
seem to indicate that it was deposited in brackish water. But little exea-
vation has been made in this stratum, and it is probable that it will hereafter
yield other things new to our Triassie fauna

A description of this locality and of the fossils found there was pub-
lished by L. P. Gratacap.' A wood-eut figure of a large specimen of fish
found there is given, and it is regarded as identical with Pal@oniscus latus
of Redfield. Through the courtesy of Mr. Gratacap I have examined the
original of his illustration, and I have been permitted to make a draw-
ing of it, which is now published (Fig. 2). I found it essentially like a
large number of fishes from Weehawken which are in my hands, except
that it is larger and broader than any other specimen I have seen. All the
fishes from this locality have the dorsal and anal fins set far back, the anal
reaching to or beyond the base of the caudal. This would serve to dis-
tinguish them from J. latus, but they also differ from that species in the
greater uniformity in the size of the scales In most species of Ischypterus
four rows of scales on either side of the line of dorsal spines are nearly
square; the next eight rows are higher than long; then follow seven rows of
smaller scales to the median line of the abdomen. In these fishes, however,
the scales on the side are not conspicuously larger than the others, and there
is also less difference in their size, going from front to rear. Hence I must
conclude that they belong to a distinct species from Ischypterus latus, which
also occurs much higher in the Triassic series. In Mr. Gratacap’s figure
the number of scales in the vertical rows of the side is represented as twenty-
three; a number which I have found equaled in only one species of the
genus, J. ovatus, in which it is twenty-four. The specimen does not permit
the scales in the widest part to be counted, but immediately anterior to the
dorsal and anal fins the number is apparently sixteen; this renders it prob-
able that the number in the anterior rows may reach nineteen, a number
which may be considered as normal for the genus.

The posterior position of the dorsal fin, the uniformity in the size of
the scales, and the unarmed or short-spined character of those of the dorsal

line clearly mark this species as distinct from any other known.

1Am. Naturalist, vol. 20, 1886, pp. 243-246.

FOSSIL FISHES. AD

IscuypTERus Parvus W. C. R. (MS).
Pl. XIII, Fig. 4.

In the manuscript report of J. H. Redfield, now in my hands, I find
a description of a small species of Ischypterus to which he gives the above
name, crediting it to W. C Redfield. He also refers to the figures given
by Prof. Edward Hitchcock" as illustrating the species. His description is
as follows:

Fish small and fusiform; head small—less than one-quarter length of tish ; scales
minute concentrically striate, pectorals rather small, rays delicate; ventrals very
small; dorsal small and triangular, with anterior raylets stout and few in number; anal
very small; tail forked, lobes rather obtuse; length three inches, breadth three-
quarters of an inch.

Occurs at Sunderland, Mass., Boonton, N. J., and perhaps at Westfield, Coun.

This species is rare. Very few perfect individuals have been found. Its small size
and the delicate character of its scales and fins will at once distinguish it.

The above description is so brief and general that in the absence of
type specimens it is difficult, if not impossible, to identify the species. The
figures in the Geology of Massachusetts, to which Mr. Redfield refers, are
evidently drawn from very imperfectly preserved fishes, of which little more
can be said than that they belong to the genus Ischypterus. They are, how-
ever, quite distinct from the little fishes found at Durham to which I have
given the name J. minutus, being narrower and more fusiform and with
much smaller dorsal fins. A little fish found at Sunderland, much more like
those figured by Hitchcock, is represented on Plate XVIII, Fig. 4. It is
fairly well preserved, and we can see by its fusiform body and small dorsal
scales that it is not the young of I. tenuiceps. There can be little doubt,
therefore, that it represents the species figured by Hitchcock and cited by
Redfield as representing his J. parvus. The figure now given may therefore
be taken as the first truthful illustration of that species. Whether it is dis-
tinct from any other described remains to be shown by further investigation.
At Durham and Sunderland fusiform fishes of the genus /schypterus con-
siderably larger than this or that figured by Hitchcock occur, though

rarely, and not often in good preservation. These have the general

‘Geol. Mass., quarto ed., vol. 2, pl. XXIX, fig. 3, and in atlas accompanying octavo ed., pl. XIV,
fig. 44.

46 TRIASSIC FISHES AND PLANTS.

aspects and proportions of the much smaller fish now figured, and it is
possible they are only older individuals of the same species. Of this, how-
ever, we have no positive proof. The larger fishes referred to were con-
sidered by W. C. Redfield as belonging to the species J. fultus, and that is
possible ; but judging from the material I have seen I should say the fishes
of the Connecticut Valley were more delicate in structure, with smaller and
weaker fins, and that they will probably prove to be distinct.

Iscuyprerus LATus J. H. R.
Pl. XIII, Fig. 3.

Palewoniscus latus J. H. R., Annals New York Lyceum Nat. Hist., vol. 4, Pl. I,
without description.
Paleoniscus latus J. H. R., Am. Jour., Sci., vol. 41, 1841, p. 25.

The figure given by Mr. J. H. Redfield in the Annals of the Lyceum
lacks the head and does not fully show the tail nor the fins. No deseription
accompanies the plate in the article referred to above; the only mention of
the species in the Journal of Science is exceedingly brief, and reads as

follows:

Paleoniscus latus J. H. Redfield—Broad Paleoniscus. The common length of this
species is from four to five inches, and its width is from one and a half to two and a
quarter inches. It is figured in the Annals of the New York Lyceum of Natural His-
tory, vol. 4.

Found at Westfield, Middlefield, and Durham, Conn., and Boonton, N. J.

In the manuscript catalogue of the fossil fishes of the United States,
read before the Association of American Geologists and Naturalists by J.
H. Redfield, I find the following description of Palconiscus latus.-

Fish ovate, fusiform, head obtuse, rather large, between one-third and one-quarter the
whole length of the fish; scales small, those of the anterior portion of the body much
deeper than long, concentrically striate, especially on the posterior edge; pectoral fins
small and delicate; ventrals small; dorsal rather large, with anterior raylets very long,
stout, and numerous; anal moderate, anterior raylets strong, tail forked, lobes rather
obtuse, anterior raylets small; length four to five inches, breadth one and a half to
two inches.

Occurs at Sunderland, Mass.; Middletown, Conn.; Pompton and Boonton, N. J.

The dorsal and anal fins of P. latus are far less elongated than in the other species,
though they still preserve the strong armature peculiar to the American species of

as

FOSSIL FISHES, 47

Paleoniscus. The comparative breadth of this species with the smallness of its scales
will also readily distinguish it from its American congeners. ‘The scales of the anterior
portion of the body are deeper in proportion to their length than in any other species
unless in P. ovatus.

The figure given of this species by J. H. Redfield was taken from a
specimen which has unfortunately been lost. I have not been able
to find in the Redfield collection the original of this figure; it probably
belonged to the New York Lyceum of Natural History, and was burned
with the rest of its collections. The lack of it has made the identification
of the species difficult. There are, however, no small, short, and broad fishes
found at the localities enumerated by Mr. Redfield that agree at all well
with his figure and description.

At Sunderland, Mass., and Plainfield, N. J., we have obtained a few
small ovoid fishes which correspond better than any others with the definition
of J. latus. These fishes have about the dimensions assigned to this species by
J. H. Redfield, viz, a length of four to five inches and a width of one and a
half; the head is relatively small and pointed, the scales of the dorsal line
are prominent, and the broad shield-shaped scale which covers the base of
the dorsal fin is relatively very large—as large, indeed, as in any of the large
species of the genus—and is notched behind where it touches the first of the
fulcra. The fins are all small and weak, the body immediately anterior to
the caudal fin is narrowed to about one-third of the breadth between the
head and dorsal, the scales are relatively small and crowded, eighteen in a
vertical row between the median lines of back and abdomen in the broadest
part of the fish. Of these, the six lower are small, square, and of nearly
uniform size; the seventh row is the beginning of a series consisting of eight,
which are higher than long, the middle ones near the head being just twice
as high as broad; above these higher scales are four rows of smaller square
ones, of which the uppermost is excavated to fit the rounded base of the
great spined scale which stands at the head of the row.

These little fishes I have supposed might represent Mr. Redfield’s
species, but I have found none at Boonton or Durham which I could associate

‘with them. At Boonton a somewhat similar species (J. elegans) is not un-

common, but that is larger, has smaller dorsal scales, and a more arched back.

48 TRIASSIC FISHES AND PLANTS.

IscHYPTERUS MINUTUS, 0. Sp.
Pl. XIII, Figs. 5, 5a.

Fishes three inches in length by one inch broad ; long-ovoid in outline ;
body widest at base of dorsal fin; head pointed, one-quarter the entire
length ; dorsal fin located at about the center of the body, relatively large
and broad; anal fin just reaching to base of caudal; tail narrow; caudal
fin, like all the others, delicate in structure. 3‘

The little fishes upon which the above description is based have been
found only at Durham, Conn. They differ from the other small species
of the genus found elsewhere by their broader, more ovoid outline, the
large size and breadth of the dorsal fin, and the general delicacy of
structure.

It is quite possible that we have here the young of some species of
Ischypterus of which the mature form has been described under another
name, but there is no fish found in the locality where these occur with
which the resemblance is so close as to indicate this, and no connecting
links have been found between these little fishes and those of larger size.
Their structure was evidently very delicate, and they are so imperfectly
preserved that a full description and satisfactory comparisons can not be
made from any specimens yet obtained. Till more material further illumi-
nating the subject shall be procured we may consider the individuals of
this species as distinguished by their small size, ovoid form, delicate struct-
ure, and especially by the relatively great size and breadth of the dorsal fin.

The small size is in itself, perhaps, a sufficient reason for the delicate
structure, which permitted the destruction of most parts; but it will be
noticed that in both the specimens now figured the body is unusually wide
opposite the dorsal fin, and this fin is relatively larger and broader than in
any other known species of the genus. Possibly this is simply the result of
immaturity, as the fins are abnormally large in many young fishes. The
great breadth of the dorsal fin may, however, prove a constant character,
and thus serve as a means of distinguishing the species. Small fishes occur
at Boonton and Sunderland, but they are usually so badly preserved, that
little can be said of their specific relations. Only at Durham do we find

TFOSSIL FISHES. 49

the details of structure retained, and all the small fishes of the genera
Catopterus and Ischypterus which I have thought worthy to be figured have
been obtained: there.

It is somewhat remarkable that among the thousands of presumably
mature individuals of all the six genera yet found in our Triassic rocks
the young are so generally absent. Some difference in size is perceptible
among those which we suppose to represent the twenty-eight known species,
but if young and old were in the habit of associating together we ought to
have graded sizes of many of the species. -From the facts that we do not
find them and that the variation in size among those which we are able to
distinguish by certain definite characteristics is limited, we must infer that
the young of all or most of these species associated together in different
localities from those where the mature individuals are now found. Probably
some such nurseries of the Triassic fishes will yet be discovered and will
help the paleontologist of the future to discriminate between the species,
but we must conclude that in the material now before us we have only
mature or submature fishes, and this gives a probability to the distinctions
we now make. Where we find twenty, fifty, or one hundred fishes which
present common characters in size, outline, strength, shape of fins, ete, we
may fairly conclude that these represent one species. Like all similar
work, however, this must be considered as only provisional and liable to
modification by the accumulation of more and better material.

ISCHYPTERUS GIGAS, . sp.
Pl. XIV, Fig. 3.

Among the fish remains which were the fruit of many weeks of quarry-
ing at Boonton a few fragments were obtained which belong to a species
of Ischypterus much larger than any hitherto described. Unfortunately, the
importance of these specimens was not appreciated by the quarrymen, and
they did not take pains to preserve all the material which they brought to
light. The remains of two individuals were found, both unfortunately
much macerated and dismembered, the tails and posterior portions of the

body, the most resistant parts, alone being well preserved. The heads and
MON XIy——4

5O TRIASSIC FISHES AND PLANTS.

middle portions of the body were a mass of scales and bones apparently
representing the place and area of the abdomen, shoulders, and head, but
two much confused to admit of accurate description or representation. The
length of the fish must haye been eighteen to twenty inches and the breadth
of the body at the widest part at least six inches. At the narrowest point,
immediately anterior to the base of the caudal fin it is quite two inches
wide; the tail when fully expanded must have been five or six inches
broad. It consisted, apparently, of fifteen closely jointed rays, some of
which are one-quarter of an inch inwidth; the fulera are numerous above,
still more so below; the anal fin was about three inches long, having at
least sixteen fulcra and seven rays; the seales half an inch or more in
diameter, thick, enamel covered, and shining. The general aspect of the
fish is that of Lepidotus, as it is much larger and coarser than most species
of Ischypterus. The tail, however, is considerably more heterocercal than
in any species of Lepidotus, and in fact in structure is precisely like that of
Ischypterus. The dorsal line is very imperfectly shown in my specimens,
and it is impossible to determine from them whether a row of spine-like
scales extended from the head to the dorsal fin. This would be conclusive
as to the relationship of this fish to Ischypterus, and doubtless that evidence
will be forthcoming.

Genus CATOPTERUS J. H. R.

Tile-scaled ganoids of medium size, body fusiform or long-ovoid in out-
line; head relatively small, obtuse or acute, all head bones highly orna-
mented; cranium opercula, maxillaries, and mandibles covered with tuber-
cles of enamel; clavicles bearing parallel or interrupted raised lines ; teeth
numerous, conical, acute on premaxillaries, maxillaries, and mandibles; fins
broadly or narrowly triangular, acute, all bearing numerous closely-set,
rod-like fulera along the anterior margins; rays many-jointed, enameled,
and polished; dorsal fin placed far back on the body, generally opposite the
middle of the anal; caudal fin deeply and gracefully forked; extremity of
body obliquely rounded and extended a short distance into the upper lobe
of the caudal fin; anal fin reaching nearly to base of caudal; ventrals

midway between anal and pectorals; scales rhomboidal on the sides, toward

FOSSIL FISHES. Hill

the head quadrate, often toothed, near the tail long lozenge-shaped, acute.
Along the middle line of the back runs a row of somewhat larger ovoid, or
polygonal scales of peculiar form. The surface of most of the scales is
smooth and polished, but in some species those on the sides near the head
are marked with oblique raised lines, and in one species the surface is
occupied by lines parallel with the margin and converging to the posterior
point.

The most striking peculiarity of this genus is the posterior position of
the dorsal fin, a character which suggested the name given it by J. H. Red-
field.

The species of Catopterus are among the most beautiful of fossil fishes ;
the outline is graceful, the head bones are crowded with ornamentation, the
scales highly polished, often serrate or toothed on the posterior margin, and
decorated with parallel or concentric raised lines. The fins are long, grace-
ful, and flowing; the pectorals are faleate and acute, the first rays very
strong, and thickly set with short fulera, which give it a serrate appearance
The margins of the other fins are decorated in the same way, so that the
genus may be recognized by even a fragment of afin. The fin rays are
very numerous and frequently articulated, the joints flattened and highly
polished, so that in the fossil state the form and structure are often beauti-
fully preserved and never fail to excite admiration in the observer.

No species of Catopterus has yet been found in the Mesozoic rocks of
the Old World, or, at least, no fossil fish has yet been identified as such In
eastern America, however, during the latter part of the Triassic age, two or
three species were exceedingly numerous in the lakes and estuaries of the
Atlantic coast. In New Jersey and the Connecticut Valley the species of
Catopterus are fewer than of Ischypterus, and the number of individuals
is on the whole less, but in some localities the two genera are about equally
represented. They may be distinguished at a glance, even when minor dif-
ferences are not shown, by the position of the dorsal fin. In Ischypterus
this is always anterior to the anal, while in Catopterus it is either opposite
or posterior.

Since the above description was written I have received from $. W.

Loper, of Durham, Conn., some specimens, which enable me to add some-

52 ' TRIASSIC FISHES AND PLANTS.

thing to the generic description, as they show better than any before known
the under and upper sides of the head. From these it appears, first, that
on the under side of the body the scales extend in a V-shaped point consid-
erably forward of the pectoral fins, the extreme angle being under the center
of the head. Secondly, the apex of the arch formed by the mandibles is
occupied by a median jugular plate similar to that of Ama; its surface is
covered with coarse, rounded, or elongated tubercles, and its sides are notched
to receive the conical extremities of the interclavicles (?) by which it is bor-
dered. These are covered with polished raised lines with a radiated arrange-
ment at the extremity; they are often broken into tubercles of enamel.
Thirdly, the mandibles are narrow and slender and, like the other bones of
the head, coarsely granulated. Fourthly, the under side of the pectoral
fins shows about ten rays which, simple at base, soon divide into polished
rods articulated only toward their extremities; in this respect showing a
structure very different from that of the upper surface, in which the articu-
lations are short and numerous, apparently metamorphosed scales; a chiar-
acter exhibited throughout the unpaired dorsal, caudal, and anal fins.

The bones of the sides and top of the head are not quite as distinctly
shown, but the following points of structure can apparently be made out:
The cranial bones are all rather coarsely tuberculated; they consist of a
pair of large polygonal frontals, which are notched on the anterior lower
border for the eye orbit; the ethmoid is pentagonal, wedge-shaped poste-
riorly, the point interposed between the diverging lines of the frontals; the
sides are straight, slightly inclined toward each other forward, the anterior
margin apparently joining the premaxillaries, which are united to form a
transversely oval bone bristling with teeth—the extremity of the muzzle.
The posterior angles of the frontals are cut to receive small oblong or ovoid
parietals. The middle line of the head terminates behind by a triangular
supraoccipital, of which the rounded base fits into a sinus in the frontals.
On either side of the supraoccipital are small, polygonal post temporals, of
which the posterior edge is joined by the scales of the back. The max-
illaries are spatulate, broadly rounded or truncated behind and anteriorly
fitted to the premaxillary. The orbit is formed by a bony ring, but the

number of pieces composing it is not shown.

ne

VOSSIL FISHES. 53

The operculum is semilunar, anterior margin slightly concave. It appar-
ently consists of two parts, which may be operculum and interoperculum, but
this is not plainly shown. Joining the mandible behind seems to be a
small, oblong quadrate, but this is also too obscure to he insisted upon.

All the specimens which show the structure of the head fairly well
belong to Catopterus Redfieldi. In these the first rows of scales next the
head and in the gular triangle are ornamented with tubercles or ridges,
and their posterior margins are notched or toothed. Like the joints of the
fin rays these are brilliantly polished, and confirm what has been said in
regard to the great beauty of the external decoration of this elegant fish.

Catoprerts Reprrevpr Egerton.
PI Xe, Bigs. 5 2) 3.

Among the Triassic fishes taken to England by Sir Charles Lyell and
examined by Sir Philip Egerton were (1) three species of Ischypterus ; (2)
representatives of Catopterus gracilis J. H. R; (3) Catopterus Redfieldi, “a
broader fish than the preceding, and with scales not so long in proportion
to their depth.”* This is all the description we have of this species; but as
there are found at Durham, Conn., many individuals of a large and broad
species of Catopterus, and one to which the name gracilis is certainly inap-
plicable, I have thought it probable that this was the fish referred to by
Sir Philip Egerton, and I take pleasure in accepting his name, and by
figures and more complete descriptions securing to the founder of the genus
the dedication of its finest species. This may be characterized as follows:
Fish of large size, ten inches in length by three in breadth; long-ovoid in
outline, broadest between ventral and pectoral fins; head small, pointed,
about one-sixth of the entire length, or one and one-half inches long and
deep; bones of the head all thickly set with enameled tubercles; clavicles
ornamented with raised lines and elongated tubercles of enamel; dorsal fin
opposite middle of anal; caudal fin forked, though less deeply than in
some other species; anal fin broad, not reaching the base of caudal; ven-
trals midway between anals and pectorals ; scales on sides near head oblong

'Qnart. Jour. Geol. Soc. London, vol. 3, 1847, p. 278.

54 TRIASSIC FISHES AND PLANTS.

or quadrate, sometimes twice as high as long, surface partially covered with
raised lines which project to form teeth on the posterior margin, In the
middle of the body the scales are longer than high, plain or faintly striated,
and bearing one or more posterior teeth; scales near tail rhomboidal,
smooth; scales of median line of back transversely oval or somewhat polyg-
onal, faintly striated; teeth numerous on premaxillaries, maxillaries, and

mandibles, from one-eighth to one-quarter of an inch long, conical, sub-

>)
acute. The average size of the fish of this species may be said to be nine
inches in length by three in breadth. he general form and proportions
were similar to those of our shad and the outlines were equally elegant. As
we always find the fishes of this species lying on the side, we may infer
that, they were laterally compressed, the vertical diameter being greater
than the transverse.

The specimens for which Sir Philip Egerton suggested the name now
given were from Durham, Conn., and this seems to be the special home of
the species, though it has apparently been found at other localities in the
Connecticut Valley and in New Jersey. Fully one-half of all the fishes
obtained by Mr. Loper at Durham belong to this species, and he has fur-
nished me with a large number of beautifully preserved specimens.

As in all the species of the genus the head seems to have been largely
cartilaginous, and as’ a consequence is often defective or distorted in the
fossils. Occasionally, however, as in the specimen represented in Fig. 1,
on Plate XV, the outline of the head is accurately shown as well as the posi-
tion of the eye and the form of several of the head bones. But even here
they are somewhat confused, and it is difficult to compare bone by bone
the structure of the head with that of the palzoniscoid fishes of the Car-
boniferous, with which the relationship has been supposed to be close. So
far as we can judge from the specimens before us branchiostegals are want-
ing, the operculum is nearly vertical, and the eye surrounded by a bony
ring composed of two pieces. Unfortunately the head bones are not only
generally displaced, but they are covered with a coating which obscures
the sutures, the matrix clinging to the granulated surfaces of the head
bones much more closely than to the polished scales.

FOSSIL FISHES. 55

CaAToPTERUS GRACILIS J. H. R.
Te eVally Migs sie 25 ta.

Catopterus gracilis J. H. R. (Am. Jour. Sci., vol. 41, 1841, p. 27) Fish elon-
gated, fusiform ; covered with rhomboidal scales of medium size. Head rather small,
one-fifth of the whole length, and in well preserved individuals presents a finely
granulated surface. Operculum lunate, arched; teeth small, obtuse, in numerous
rows; back nearly straight, slightly arched, lateral line nearly parallel with back.
All the fins, including the caudal, have a series of yery short and close raylets begin-
ning at a point just anterior to the fin and extending from the first or anterior ray to
its extremity, giving a serrated appearance to the anterior border of the fin. In the

‘dorsal, anal, and caudal fins these raylets are preceded by inbricated, pointed scales,
which seem gradually to pass into raylets; the pectoral fin is long and narrow, in-
serted very near the operculum; the first, second, or third rays very strong and
conspicuous, the remainder more slender; all the rays except perhaps the first are
articulated or subdivided toward their extremities; number of primary rays ten to
twelve, anterior raylets about twenty. Ventral fins small, inserted midway between
the pectoral and-anal, rather near the pectoral. The rays are all slender, about eight
in number, anal fin large, midway between ventral fin and tail, and occupies about
one-fourth of the distance between them ; the rays are twenty-five to thirty in num-
ber, very slender and filiform and much articulated ; dorsal fin small and triangular,
situated opposite the posterior part of the anal; rays ten to twelve, decreasing in size
from the first; tail forked, slightly heterocercal ; the scales of the body extending to
about one-third of the upper lobe; lobes long and acute; caudal rays thirty to forty,
finely articulated and subdivided. The scates of the anterior part of the body are
much broader than those of the posterior, and in old individuals are undulate and
subserrate on the posterior margins. The scales become more and more rhombic
ani decrease in size as they approach the tail; the scales of the dorsal ridges are of
an irregular polygonal shape, presenting a triangular form posteriorly, and are much
more imbricated than those of the sides. One or two very large scales are found upon
the ventral ridge posterior to the anal fin. There are usually fifty-two to fifty-five
rows of scales in length and fifteen to twenty in breadth; length of fish ten inches.
Found at Middletown, Durham, and Southbury, Conn., and Boonton, N. J.

The above is a description of Catopterus gracilis contained in the manu-
script copy of the Report on the Fossil Fishes of the United States, read to
the Association of American Geologists and Naturalists at New Haven,
Conn., in 1845, by J. H. Redfield, and kindly communicated to me by
him.

A briefer and earlier description of the genus and species, with a figure
of C. gracilis, was published by J. IL. Redfield in volume 4, page 37, of the
Annals of the New York Lyceum of Natural History. The type specimen
was then in possession of the Yale Natural History Society, and is now in

56 TRIASSIC FISHES AND PLANTS.

the cabinet of Yale College. Unfortunately it is vertically crushed and nar-
rowed, and gives a very imperfect idea of the species to which it belongs.
After examining the specimen I am convinced that it should be associated
with the broad form, for which the name C. Redfieldi was suggested by Sir
Philip Egerton, That fish in its normal condition has nearly the outline
of the shad, and with a length of ten inches has frequently a breadth of
three; the name Catopterus gracilis is therefore inappropriate, and conveys a
false impression. If the specimen figured were accepted as the type it
would be better to consider it a synonym of C. Redfieldi and abandon the
name C. gracilis. But there is a species of Catopterus which is much more
slender than C. Redfieldi, and of this numerous svecimens were in the
hands of the Messrs. Redfield, and doubtless influenced them in selecting
the specific name gracilis. It is certain that specimens of this fish served as
a basis, in part at least, for J. H. Redfield’s description, and it is even
doubtful whether any good specimen of C. Redfieldi was ever examined by
either W. C. or J. H. Redfield. They have mostly been procured from
Durham, Conn., by Mr. 8. W. Loper, in the last ten years. From these
facts it has seemed to me less liable to produce confusion and to do more
complete justice to Messrs. Redfield to retain the name gracilis for the more
slender fish, to which the description of J. I. Redfield is not inappropriate,
while it is not applicable to the broader form to which the specific name
Redfieldi has been given.

I will only add to the description of J. H. Redfield that Catopterus
gracilis is always fusiform, often quite slender, the head never more than
one-fifth of the entire length, the fins relatively long and narrow, the body
widest at the ventrals, where it is sometimes, though rarely, an inch anda
half in width, and behind the dorsal often not much more than half an inch
wide; the scales are quadrate near the head, oblong in the middle, and
rhomboid at the posterior extremity of the body. They are sometimes finely
serrate on the posterior margins, never deeply toothed as in C. Redfeldi,
and the surface in all the specimens I have seen is essentially plain. On
Pl. XVI, Fig. 1, is represented an entire fish of this species, and one of the
broader forms, while Fig. 3 shows the posterior half of the body of one of
the more slender individuals. The difference of form between this and

=e) oe

FOSSIL FISHES. 7

the preceding species will be seen by comparing the latter figure with that
of a corresponding portion of the body of C. Iedfieldi given on Pl. XV,
Fig. 3. :
CATOPTERUS MINOR, N. sp.
Pl. XVH, Figs. 1-4.

Fishes robust, fusiform, five to six inches in length by one and a half
inches in diameter at widest part, which is immediately behind the pectoral
fins; head depressed, conical, pointed, all head bones covered with coarse
granulations of enamel; clavicles marked with strong longitudinal plica-
tions; fins triangular or faleate, sharp-pointed; caudal deeply forked, lobes
gracefully arched, acute; dorsal and anal fins opposite; radial formula as
follows: Pectorals—fulera twenty-seven, rays six; ventrals—fulera eight-
een, rays five; anal—fulcra twenty-four, rays twenty long and _ three
shorter on anterior margin; dorsal—fulcra three, rays fifteen; caudal—
rays thirty long, three shorter above and below, thirty-six in all; lower
lobe—fulera thirty, with three large fulcral scales at base; upper lobe—
fulera eighteen, with three fulcral scales, which are succeeded forward by
four large peltate scales on dorsal line, reaching half way to base of dorsal
fin; scales quadrangular, nearly uniform in size; on the lateral line forty-
two, which are marked by mucous tubes; about twenty-four in the vertical
rows on the side near the head; those of the median line ovoid or polygonal;
surface of all the scales on the anterior portion of the body ornamented
with raised lines; on the nape and abdomen part of the scales carry one
or two raised lines parallel with the margin and converging to the pos-
terior point; on the side near the head all the scales are obliquely tray-
ersed by raised and often beaded lines, which terminate in acute denticu-
lations of the posterior margin. From Durham, Conn., I have obtained,
through Mr. Loper, quite a number of small specimens of Catopterus, which
are of nearly uniform size —about five inches in length by one and a

quarter in width—all lying partly upon the abdomen and showing the line
of median scales upon the back. This proves that the body was round,
or perhaps somewhat flattened vertically; the head is small, depressed,
pointed; the scales of the posterior portion of the body highly polished;

those of the anterior ornamented with raised lines and having the posterior

58 TRIASSIC FISHES AND PLANTS.

margins coarsely denticulate; the fins are of moderate size, very graceful
in their outlines and beautifully constructed and preserved. On the whole,
these are the handsomest fossil fishes of which I have any knowledge.

I have been somewhat in doubt whether they may not be regarded as
the young of C. Redfieldi, with which they are associated and which they in
some points resemble, but they present some distinct characters which they
have in common among themselves, such as the pointed head, the round and
vertically flattened body, the ornamented scales varying comparatively little
in size, and the opposite position of the anal and dorsal fins. These char-
acters have seemed to me sufficient to make this little group of fishes the
representatives of a distinet species. The relationship of these fishes to that
which I have ealled Cafopterus ornatus is close; the size, form, position, and
other features of the body are the same, the only difference being the pecul-
iar ornamentation which coyers most of the seales of C. ornatws, and is only
faintly indicated in a very few seales of some individuals of C. minor. The
radiating lines which mark the side scales in the present species are wanting
or but faintly indicated in C. ornatus, but we have some traces of them in
the much larger fishes which I have supposed to represent C. Redfieldi.

The theory that these fishes constitute a distinct species of Cafopterus is
confirmed by the fact that, so far as at present known, they are found at no
other loeality than Durham, Conn., although the larger species of the genus

are abundant at Boonton, and are sometimes met with at Sunderland.

CATOPTERUS ORNATUS, N. sp.
Pl. XVIII, Figs. 3, 3a, 3d.

Fishes fusiform, five inches long by one and a quarter inches wide at
the broadest part; head bones unknown; fins all delicate; anal opposite
dorsal; scales rhomboidal or elliptical, of nearly uniform size, relatively
large, external surface ornamented by raised lines parallel with the border
and terminating in the posterior point or angle; along the dorsal median
line is a row of ovoid scales somewhat larger than the others, marked by
the usual raised lines parallel with the margin, and in addition a single

raised line, sometimes beaded, which passes from the center of the scale to
the posterior point. On the sides near the head the scales, which all show

FOSSIL FISHES. 59

more or less of the concentric lines, are also faintly marked with radiating,
beaded lines terminating in sharp teeth at the posterior border.

Only a single specimen of this little fish has yet been found. It has
the form and size of Catopterus minor, but differs from that and all other
species known, in the peculiar and pronounced ornamentation of the seales.
Most of these are decorated with strong raised lines parallel with the mar-
gins and running to the posterior point, which is often somewhat prolonged.
On the sides near the head this ornamentation is joined to or superseded by
the radiating raised beaded lines terminating in teeth, often though not
always seen in Catopterus Redfieldi and Catopterus minor. The body must
have been round or somewhat flattened vertically, since it lies on the ab-
domen with the middle line of the back uppermost, the position generally
assumed by the fishes which I have designated by the name of C. minor.
The general aspect of these fishes is so similar, that I have been inclined to
consider them as varieties of the same species, but the ornamentation of the
scales in C. ornatus is so marked, that I do not feel authorized to unite them
without better evidence than I now possess.

The ornamentation described above is on the same plan with that of
the seales of Celacanthus elegans from the Coal Measures, but the number of
raised and converging lines is less in the Triassic fish.

Figs. 8a and 30 represent the scales enlarged to show the ornamenta-
tion, the former the ovate scales of the dorsal line, the latter the rhomboidal
scales of the sides.

CaTopTeRuS ANGUILLIFoRMIS W. C, R.
pl. XVII, Fig. 5.
W GC. Redfield describes a species of Caiopterus in the following words:'

Catopterus anguilliformis W. C.K. (Hel shaped Catopterus).—This remarkable
species, as hitherto found, is from seven to nearly ten inches in length; width, half to
three-fourths of an inch. It has a finely-forked and extended caudal fin of delicate
structure; a well-extended dorsal; and all the fins are fringed with the fine raylets
which pertain to this genus. The impressions of the fins are usually but faintly visi-
ble, owing, probably, to their delicate structure. The scales are equally indistinet,
and the impression of the head is seldom visible.

Found at Westfield and Middletown, Conn.; Boonton, N. J.; and, as I have been
informed, at Sunderland, Mass.

1 Amer. Jour. Sei., vol. 41, 1841, p. 27.

60 TRIASSIC FISHES AND PLANTS

In the collection of fossil fishes left by W.C. Redfield, and among
hundreds of specimens I have examined from Boonton, Durham, Sunder-
land, and elsewhere, I have seen but two which correspond with this de-
scription. These are from Durham, and are contained in a shale that is
quite metamorphosed, and in which the impressions of the fossils are indis-
tinct. They are very defective in details of structure, but it is hardly pos-
sible to avoid the conclusion that they represent a fish different from any
other known. One of these is represented on Pl. XVIII, Fig. 5; the
other is larger, though scarcely wider, and the outline is less complete.

It would be somewhat surprising if it should prove true that in the
same locality lived two species of the same genus differing in form as
much as these slender eel-like fishes differ from Catopterus Redfieldi, which,
when mature, was relatively as broad as a shad. It is therefore quite pos-
sible that when better specimens of the slender fish shall be found they will
present points of structure which will require reference to a new genus.
So far as can be observed, however, they exhibit the characters of Catop-
terus; the tail is deeply forked, and the caudal, like the pectorals, is bor-
dered by the fine fulcra so characteristic of that genus; so that, till conflict-
ing evidence is found, we must follow W. C. Redfield in the name he has
given. The absence of all details of structure in these fossil fishes is proof
of great delicacy of organization, such as we find in the young of most
fishes, but the great length of these specimens forbids the inference that
they are young fishes, since no traces of larger individuals with anything
like the same proportions have been discovered.

CaTorpTerus paRvuLus W. C. R.
Pl. XVI, Figs. 4, 5.

The description given of this species by Mr. Redfield will be found in
the article’ so frequently cited on the preceding pages. It reads as follows:
Catopterus parvulus: W.C. RB. (Little Catopterus).-—This small and delicate fossil is

but obscurely developed in the few specimens which have been obtained. The ex-
tremely fine spread caudal and other fins, with their slender frontal raylets, serve to

1Am., Jour. Sci., vol. 41, 1841.

FOSSIL FISHES. 61

mark it as a member of the genus, although these raylets are fewer in number and of

greater and more unequal length than in the other species. In the few specimens

ebtained the caudal extremity is commonly found in a bent or half-twisted position.
Found at Middlefield, Conn., Sunderland, Mass., and Boonton, N. J.

In our excavations at Boonton, where we obtained several hundred
fishes in better or worse condition, a few delicate, imperfect, and usually
distorted specimens were found which correspond fairly well with the above
description, and yet it has seemed to me that they are probably the young
of the larger species of Catopterus; if not, the species can only be satisfac-
torily defined from material more perfect than any I have yet seen.

These little fishes are generally from two and a half to four inches in
length and very imperfectly preserved; that is, the scales are scarcely visi-
ble and all details of head structure are wanting. The fins, especially the
caudal, are sometimes fairly well shown, and consist of numerous extremely
fine parallel rays bordered by fulcra of corresponding delicacy. These
prove that they belong to the genus Catopterus, but their minute size and
their delicacy of structure are signs of immaturity, and it is therefore impos-
sible to affirm that they constitute a distinct species. It may be said, how-
ever, that with these little fishes somewhat larger ones are found which
exhibit nearly equal delicacy of structure. They are from four to six inches
in length, with a maximum width of perhaps an inch near the head. The
fins are sometimes well shown, but the scales are almost invisible. Some-
thing of their indistinctness may be due to decomposition or to imperfect
fossilization, but the fin rays are much more slender than in the smaller
individuals of Catopterus found at Durham, which I have designated by the
name Catopterus minor. Hence I must conclude that they are not specifi-
cally identical with these. For the present it may be perhaps as well to let
these small, delicate, and imperfectly preserved specimens of Catopterus
stand for Redfield’s species C. parvulus, but it is quite possible they will
prove to be the young of C. gracilis.

Genus DICTYOPYGE Egerton.

Small heterocercal ganoids; body fusiform; head small, conical, one-

fifth the entire length; muzzle rounded, obtuse; opercula large, semicireu-

62 TRIASSIC FISHES AND PLANTS.

lar; clavicles coarsely plaited; bones of the head all granulated; scales rhom-
boidal, smooth, those of the lateral line strongly marked, oblong, some-
what rounded above and below, emarginate behind, showing conspicuous
mucous pores or tubes; scales of the under side of the body very numerous,
narrow, elongated longitudinally; pectoral and ventral fins small; dorsal fin
opposite to or a little in advance of the anal; caudal fin forked; anal fin
broad, rounded, consisting of twenty-two long and two short rays, of which
the central ones are broadest and are supported by strong interspinous
bones; anterior rays of all the fins set with short, oblique, obtuse, polished
fulera. At the base of the caudal fin, above and below, these are succeeded
by large, ovate, pointed, fuleral scales, which reach forward to the dorsal
and anal fins.

The type specimens of Dictyopyge were obtained by Sir Charles Lyell
at Blackheath, Va., and were described by Sir Philip Egerton.’ This fish
was previously described by W. C. Redfield under the name of Catopterus
macrurus in the American Journal of Science, (vol. 41, 1841, p. 27), but Sir
Philip Egerton, as cited by Lyell, considered it distinct from the genus Catop-
terus, because ‘the dorsal fin is more strictly opposite to the anal than in
Catopterus Redfield,” and because, ‘Shaving a homocereal tail, it can not be
comprehended in it.” » Mr. Redfield did not accept the genus Dictyopyge of
Egerton, because, as he said, Catopterus macrurus was really no less hetero-
cereal than the other species of the genus, and with the other common char-
acters the slight difference in the position of the fins had in his judgment only
a specific value. There is something to be said on both sides of this ques-
tion, and perhaps it cannot be settled until we have more material; but by a
careful study of that now in hand I have been inclined to accept the genus
Dictyopyge. In Catopterus macrurus of Redfield the opercula are larger, con-
stituting one-half a circle, the scales of the under side of the body are much
more numerous, the dorsal fin is more in advance, the anal fin broader,
larger, and rounder, and the interhaemal spines by which it is supported
are inuch stronger, and finally the tail is less forked than in the other species
of Catopterus. In my specimens, as well as in those figured by Sir Philip

Egerton, the dorsal fin is decidely in advance of the anal, and both are so

'Quart. Jour. Geol. Soc, London, vol, 3, 1850, p. 275,

FOSSIL FISHES. 63

large and round as to give a peculiar aspect, which will strike the most casual
observer. On the other hand, the character of the posterior end of the body
is precisely the same as in Catopterus, and the anterior margin of each fin is
set with the numerous divergent fulera which are so characteristic of that
genus; but in the species under consideration they are more numerous,
shorter, blunter, and more divergent. Hence we must conclude that if this
fish represents a different genus it is still very closely allied to Catopterus.

Sir Philip Egerton, as cited by Lyell,’ alludes to fragments of another
and larger species of Dictyoryge from Chesterfield County, Va. This I sup-
pose to be the same fish as that represented by some fragments I have from
that region. It was a much larger fish than D. macrura and the divisions of
the fin rays were marked by several raised lines, constituting a peculiar
style of ornamentation.

Johannes Striiver in 1864 published® a notice of the Fossil Fishes of
the Keuper, of Coburg, Saxony, in which he describes and figures a spe-
cies of Dictyopyge (D. socialis) and reviews the structure and relations of
the genus. With this notice he also publishes a figure and (p. 305) a de-
scription of another fish associated with the last, Semionotus Bergeri Ag., to
which I have alluded elsewhere. These figures and descriptions are of
special interest for comparison with the fishes of our American Trias; for
it is probable that, if a few good specimens of Ischypterus and Catopterus had
come into the hands of Agassiz, Berger, Egerton, or Striiver previous to the
publications of Semionotus, Catopterus, and Dictyopyge, Ischypterus would
have been united with Semionotus and Dictyopyge socialis have been included
in Catopterus. Judging from Striiver’s figures it is impossible to designate
any important character by which these fishes could be generically dis-
tinguished. Semionotus Bergeri has a dorsal fin which is a little broader
than that of any of our species of Ischypterus, but in all other respects, even
to the row of erect and pointed scales on the back, there is the greatest
similarity between the two genera; nor are there any differences to which
we can give generic value between Dictyopyge socialis of the Coburg-Keuper
Sandstein and Catopterus gracilis of Redfield. It is true that in the former

1Quart. Jour. Geol. Soe. London, vol. 3, p. 277.
* Zeitschrift Deutsch. geol. Gesellschaft, Berlin, vol. 16, 1864, p. 303-330.

64 TRIASSIC FISHES AND PLANTS.

the dorsal fin is exactly opposite the anal, while in the latter the first rays
of the dorsal are opposite the middle of the anal, but in another species of
Catopterus (C. minor N.) the position of the fins is exactly that of D. socialis ;
while in the Virginia species, which was taken by Egerton as the type of his
genus Dictyopyge, the dorsal fin is sensibly anterior to the anal; so that this
character can not be considered as diagnostic. Another distinction which’
Striiver makes between Catopterus macrurus (which he erroneously names
macropterus throughout his article) and Dictyopyge socialis, viz. “ fulera der
Schwanzflossen ziemlich gross” and ‘“fulcra sammtlicher Flossen fein,” does
not hold good, for the fulcra are quite as fine in the Virginia as in the Co-
burg specimens. The only differences which I can specify between our
commonest species of Catopterus and Dictyopyge socialis are the broader
operculum, the narrower scales of the belly, and the less deeply forked tail
of the latter. In these characters Dictyopyge macrurus and D. socialis are dis-
tinguished from all the species of Catopterus found in New Jersey or in
Connecticut; and, as I have said elsewhere, these may perhaps afford a
raison d’étre for Dictyopyge.

DictyopyGe MacrurA Egerton.
Pl, XVIL, Figs. 1, 2.

Catopterus macrurus W.C. R., Am. Jour. Sci., vol. 41, 1841, p. 27.

Dictyopyge macrura Egerton, Quart. Jour. Geol. Soc., London, vol. 6, 1850, p. 4.

Fishes small, fusiform; head rather small, surface finely granulated; scales of
medium size, those of the sides and back square or slightly rhomboidal, those on the
under side of body very numerous and narrow; pectoral fins of medium size, primary
rays seven or eight, anterior raylets very fine, short, and close, over forty in number;
ventrals small, triangular, and elongated, rays eight or nine, fulera about thirty; anal
very large, quadrate, sometimes reaching as far as base of caudal, rays over thirty in
number; tail forked, very long, acute, and spreading, lower lobe longest, rays thirty-
five to forty, closely articulated and toward the extremity finely subdivided. Length
five inches, breadth one and a quarter inches.

The above description is abbreviated from that of J. H, Redfield. Fur-
ther details will be found in the discussion of the generic relations.
Up to the present time no specimens of this fish have been found else-
where than in the Richmond coal basin. There it is locally very abun-

FOSSIL FISHES. 65

dant; one slab of shale formerly belonging to the Lyceum of Natural His-
tory, though scarcely more than a foot square, carried impressions of over
twenty individuals.

Genus PTYCHOLEPIS Ag.

Fusiform, tile-scaled ganoids of moderate size, from six to twelve inches
in length; head pointed; fins all delicate and provided with minute fulera,
dorsal triangular in outline placed near the center of the back, pectoral fins
pointed, anal fin nearer to the tail than to the ventrals, caudal but slightly
heterocercal; the posterior extremity of the body oblique, longer, and
rounded on the upper side; scales quadrangular, generally much longer
than high, and traversed by furrows which divide the surface into ridges or
folds that suggested the name; the posterior margin of the scales notched
by the extremities of the furrows; head bones all highly ornamented with
raised lines of enamel; teeth small, conical, acute.

Agassiz first described this genus (1843) from specimens found in the
Lias at Boll, in Wiirtemberg. The type he called Ptycholepis Bollensis.*
This was a fish about a foot in length, which has been met with in England
and at several places on the Continent of Europe. In 1852 Sir Philip Eger-
ton described another and much smaller species, which he called P. minor,
obtained from the Lias at Barrow-on-Soar.* In 1853 he described and fig-
ured still another species very much broader than the last, and called it P.
curtus.? The specimen upon which this description was founded was from
the Lias near Lyme Regis.

In 1878 8. W. Loper, of Durham, Conn, found in the Triassic beds,
which have yielded so many fishes at that locality, several specimens of still
another species of Ptycholepis, which came into my possession and were de-
scribed in the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, volume 1,
p. 127. Since that time perhaps a dozen more or less complete individuals
of this species have been obtained at Durham by Mr. Loper, all of which
have passed under my observation. They vary considerably in size, the
largest being eight inches long by two and a half broad; the smallest about

' Poiss. Foss., vol. 3, p. 107, pl. LVIII bis.
*Mem. Geol. Survey, United Kingdom, British Organic Remains, Decade 6, 1852, pl. VII.
’Ibid., Decade 8, 1855, pl. VIII.

MON XIV——5

66 TRIASSIC FISHES AND PLANTS.

four inches long; most of them being about six inches long by one and a
quarter inches wide. Possibly these specimens represent more than one
species, but the material yet found scarcely suffices for the accurate defini-
tion of more than one, and it is quite possible that the differences they
exhibit are only those of age. I give below the detailed description of this
species taken with slight modification, from the paper referred to above.

‘Prycnotepis Marsui Newb.
Pl. XIX, Figs. 1, 2, 2a.

Fish eight inches or more in length by two and a quarter in breadth,
fusiform, robust; head pointed, contained four and a half times in the en-
tire length; all the bones of the head marked with strong raised lines, those
of the upper surface somewhat radiate; on the opercula, maxillaries, man-
dibles, and gular plates more or less undulately parallel and forked. The
dorsal fin is of medium size and placed near the center of the back; the
anal is set far back, reaching nearly to the caudal; caudal small, forked,
the scales and vertebral column reaching distinctly into the upper lobe.
The scales on the anterior portion of the body are two or three times as
long as high, and are marked with several longitudinal furrows and raised
lines, In the middle and posterior portions they are five or six times as
long as high, and are traversed by a superficial furrow, which generally
reaches from the anterior end half or two-thirds’ the length and is again
resumed on the posterior margin; by this the extremities of the scales are
forked. On the anterior portion of the abdominal surface the scales are
exceedingly narrow, acute, and spine-like. Vertebral column partially
ossified.

On comparing our fish with the figure and description of P. Bollensis
Ag. it will be seen that it differs from that species in the position of the
dorsal fin (which is placed more anteriorly), in the details of the scales and
head markings, and in the greater degree to which the tail is vertebrated
and the spinal column ossified. In P. Bollensis the scales are covered with
fine, simple, parallel ridges of enamel, but in P. Marshii the ridges are
broader, fewer, and are forked. From P. minor Egerton our species is

easily distinguished by its greater size, narrower and notched scales, and

FOSSIL FISHES. 67

more vertebrated tail. From P. curtus Egerton it differs in its more elon-
gated form, in the plication of the scales, and the more heterocereal tail.

The discovery in our Triassic rocks of a species of Ptycholepis, a genus
before found only in the Lias of Europe, might seem to open up again the
long-debated question of the age of the New Red Sandstone of the Atlantic
_ States, but in fact it does not seriously invalidate the conclusion, based on
other evidence, that this series of strata is the equivalent of the Rheetie beds
of Europe. The fish now described is a new species, and has the vertebral
column prolonged to a greater distance into the upper lobe of the tail than
its Liassic representatives. Without attaching too much importance to this
character, we may fairly infer that it indicates a little earlier date.

The two specimens now figured are perhaps about the average in size
of all those yet found, but I have one which is eight inches long by two
inches wide; another specimen is only four inches long by five-eighths of
an inch wide. As a whole our specimens are much smaller than the average
of those of P. Bollensis. P. curtus, of Egerton, from the Lias of England,
is no longer than our specimens, but it is much more robust.

I have dedicated this species to Prof. O. C. Marsh, of Yale College.
All the specimens yet known have been obtained by S. W. Loper, at Dur-
ham, Conn.

Genus ACENTROPHORUS Traquair.

From the Triassic rocks at Chicopee Falls, Mass., a considerable num-
- ber of little fishes have been obtained which are distinctly different from
any others found in this country. Their affinities with Ischypterus are so
close, that I was for a long time disposed to consider them as belonging to
a species of that genus. The structure is essentially the same throughout,
with the exception that the crest of spinous scales which crowns the dorsal
arch in Ischpyterus is here wanting and the median line is marked by a
series of round or oval scales a little larger than the quadrangular ones
which accompany them on either side. The body is fusiform or conical,
widest near the head, tapering gradually with nearly straight lines above
and below; the fins are all weak, the dorsal placed far back, nearly as far,
indeed, as in Catopterus. ‘The structure of the fin is like that of [schyp-

68 TRIASSIC FISHES AND PLANTS.

terus, viz, relatively large spinous fulera border the margins, the rays are
few and widely separated, the caudal is narrower than in most species of
Ischypterus, and the inequality of the extremity of the body—i. e., the heter-
ocercy—is about the same as in Ischypterus, and considerably more marked
than in Catopterus.

Searching for allies of these little fishes among the figures and descrip-
tions which have been published I find in Agassiz’s Palwoniscus glaphyrus
and in the three fishes described by J. W. Kirkby,’ and called by him
Paleoniscus altus, P. Abbsii, and P. varians, what perhaps may be members
of the same genus. More material, and that in a better state of preserva-
tion will be required, however, before a satisfactory comparison can be
made. It is perhaps not certain that the group referred to all belong to
one genus. For example, Puleoniscus altus of Kirkby very closely resem-
bles our small ovoid species of Ischpyterus CL. latus), differing, so far as I can
see, only in this, that none of the median row of dorsal seales in P. altus
are spiny. Dr. R. H. Traquair—who has made a careful study of the
fishes described. by Mr. Kirkby—considers this a character of generic
value, and it has led him to place all the group of Ischpyterus-like fishes
(Paleoniscus glaphyrus, P.altus, P. varians, and P, Abbsii) mm a new genus,
which, from the absence of spiny scales, he calls Acentrophorus.*

In the Chicopee fishes the structure, so far as can be made out, is
altogether that of Ischypterus, except that the median dorsal seales are all
rounded or ovoid. Unfortunately the details of the head structure are ob-
secured by the metamorphosis to which the inclosing rocks have been sub-
jected. The teeth are, however, distinctly shown, and they prove to be
conical, pointed, and relatively strong. The form of the body is more
elongated than in most species of Ischypterus; in that respect resembling
Kirkby’s Palwoniscus varians and P. Abbsii, but the dorsal fin is placed
farther back than in those fishes or in any species of Ischypterus known.
It is, in fact, but little in advance of the anal. All the fins, including the
caudal, have the structure of those of Ischypterus, having few and many-
jointed rays and long spiny fulera, but all are relatively weak.

1 Quart. Jour. Geol. Soc. London, vol. 20, 1864, p. 353.
2 Quart. Jour. Geol. Soc. London, vol. 33, 1877, p. 560.

FOSSIL FISHES. 69

The size and number of the spiny scales of the dorsal line vary much
in the different species of Jschypterus, and it is not quite certain how far
these scales can be accepted as a generic character. For example, in some
specimens of J. tenuiceps, Ag. sp, the scales of the dorsal line immediately
back of the head are enormously developed, being more than half an inch
long, erect, radiate, and club-shaped, forming a salient crest, which gives a
very striking aspect to the fish. On the other hand, in J. /atus J. H. R. the
anterior scales of the dorsal line are oval and not spined, while the scales
back of these, though spined, are generally depressed and inconspicuous.

In the figure of Paleoniscus altus published by Mr. Kirkby! the form
is almost exactly that of the specimens of Jschypterus latus from Plainfield,
N. J., and the size is but little less. The head bones, scales, and fins seem
to be quite the same, only no spined scales appear in Mr, Kirkby’s figures
and descriptions. If this should be made a generic character, these two so-
closely allied little fishes must be separated, but if the differences noticed
above between P. fenuiceps and P. latus should be found to exist in equal or
greater degree among other species, they should be given only specific value,

The disparity in form between Paleoniscus altus Kirkby and P. varians
Kirkby would seem to be associated with some other characters which sug-
gest a generic distinctness; for example, the operculum is large and rounded
in the latter, narrow and crescent-shaped in the former. That P. altus and
P. glaphyrus are members of the same genus can hardly be doubted; but
whether P. varians and P. Ablsii should be united with them may perhaps
be questioned. The form of the body is certainly very different, and in P.
altus the operculum is semilunar and the branchiostegals are scarcely visible
(characters common to Jschypterus), while in P. varians and P. Abbsii the
opercula, including subopercula, are nearly round and the branchiostegals
are very conspicuous.

ACENTROPHORUS CHICOPENSIS, Ni. Sp.
Pl. XIX, Figs, 3, 4.

Fishes six inches long by one and three-eighths inches wide, ereatest
breadth near head, from which point the body slopes equally above and

=

1Loe. cit.

70 TRIASSIC FISHES AND PLANTS.

below to the tail; -head broad and obtuse, as wide as the body, about one-
quarter the entire length; teeth conical, relatively large; dorsal line nearly
straight, fins relatively small, dorsal and anal placed far back on body;
dorsal midway between occiput and tip of tail and much behind middle of
body; anal when depressed reaching nearly to base of caudal; ventrals
nearer to anal than to pectorals; caudal narrow and weak; scales of medium
size, apparently all smooth, those of the median edorsal line round or oval
without spines.

A large number of fishes of this species are contained in the collection
presented to Yale College by J. H. Redfield. They are from the same
locality, Chicopee Falls, Mass., and are nearly of the same size. They are
contained in a rather coarse sandy shale, which has been considerably met-
amorphosed by the proximity of trap-rock. This has obscured some of the
details of structure, such as the surface of the scales, the shape and mark-
ings of the head bones, ete., but has left the outlines of the body and the
position and form of the fins distinctly visible. The most striking charac-
ters of these fishes are the narrow, wedge-shaped form of the body, the
straightness of the dorsal and ventral lines, the smallness of the fins, the
posterior position of the dorsal, and the rounded and unarmed margins of
the median dorsal scales. As mentioned above, these seem sufficient to
warrant our placing them in a distinct genus, and since they are in most
respects very similar to the group of fishes upon which Dr. Traquair has
founded his genus Acentrophorus, it seems best to refer them at least pro-
visionally to that.

Order CROSSOPTERYGIDA Huxley.

Family CCELACANTHINI Ag.
Genus DIPLURUS Newb.

Fishes of large size, fusiform in outline, having, in common with other
members of the Ccelacanth family, a depressed and pointed muzzle, some-
what angular occiput, two dorsal fins supported on interspinous bones, a
dyphycereal caudal fin traversed by the spinal column which bears at its
extremity a small supplemental caudal; the pectoral and ventral fins lobate,

sin Ca

FOSSIL FISHES. iit

the anal nearly opposite the posterior dorsal. ‘The scales are ovoid in outline,
relatively thin, imbricated, with one-third to one-half the surface exposed,
and this ornamented with raised enamel lines. The bones of the head and
pectoral arch are granulated, or ornamented with raised, tortuous, interloclk-
ing, arid interrupted ridges. The air bladder was ossified, the vertebral
column cartilaginous, and having disappeared in fossilization, its place is rep-

“resented by a smooth band, which is continuous from the head to the ex-

tremity of the tail. In the caudal and supplemental caudal fins the course
of the spinal cord is marked by rows of scales of diminished size. The
neural and hzemal spines were ossified, and are distinctly shown in the
fossil state. The rays of the caudal fins were supported by interneural and
interhzemal spines, to the extremities of which they are attached by sheathing
splices. As in ail the other members of the family, the fin rays are hollow,
and the sides are frequently crushed together in the fossil state, but in
Diplurus the walls were strong and the rays generally retain their forms.
As in Holophagus and some of the living siluroids (Doras, Plecostomus, ete.),
the fin rays are coated with short, closely-set, acute spines. The dentition
is yet unknown, not being shown in any of the specimens found up to the
present time. Whether the teeth were flat and obtuse, like those of Undina,
or acute, as in Cwlacanthus, remains to be determined by further observa-
tion.

Diplurus shows throughout its structure all the characteristic features
of the remarkable family to which it belongs. Its resemblance to Cala-
canthus, Holophagus, and Macropoma is so close, that if they all occurred
in the same geologic formation we should hardly be justified, with our
present knowledge, in regarding them as more widely separated than are
different species of the same genus. This similarity among the members
of the family has been noticed by Professor Huxley in his remarks on
Celacanthus, Holophagus, Undina, ete.’

It is one of the most surprising and interesting facts in the history of
fishes that this family should appear so suddenly, spread over the whole
northern hemisphere, retain all the details of its highly specialized struct-
ure through the Carboniferous and Mesozoic ages, and then disappear as

.

72 TRIASSIC FISHES AND: PLANTS.

suddenly as it came, leaving among the Tertiary and living fishes no de-
scendants which can be affiliated with it. In the description of Calacanthus
elegans’ I have referred to the close resemblance and possible identity of
this little fresh-water fish with C. leptwrus, which lived in the lagoons in the
coal marshes of England. Not only are all details of internal structure the
same, but the elaborate ornamentation of scales and head plates presents no
tangible differences.

From Holophagus (with which Diplurus seems to be most closely allied)
its only obvious differences are the finer striation of the scales, the wider
separation of the two caudal fins, and the fewer articulations of the fin
rays. In Holophagus and Undinaand in the Jurassic species of Celacanthus
described by T. C. Winkler? the supplemental caudal fin seems to spring
directly from the extremity of the caudal. In Diplurus there is a distinet
interval between them; a character which suggested the name Diplurus, or
double-tail. Judging from the specimens of Holophagus gulo which I re-
cently had an opportunity of examining, both the original of Sir Philip
Egerton’s generic description and the more complete one figured by Pro-
fessor Huxley,’ I should say that this was a shorter and broader fish than
our Diplurus. Sir Philip Egerton’s specimen is much smaller, but it wants
the head, and can not be fully compared. In the body traces of another
fish are visible, which had apparently been swallowed. This would show
that Holophagus was carnivorous. The scales of Holophagus are orna-
mented with relatively few short, broad, divergent ridges of enamel, while
our species of Diplurus has many fine parallel thread lines on the scales.

In my description of the first specimens of Diplurus found IT reported
the fin rays to be smooth and the scales granulated, but that specimen
was from Boonton, N. J., and was buried in a coarse, sandy shale, in which
the minute spines of the fin rays were not discernible, and the thread lines
of the scales were broken into granules by the grains of sand. Other
and better specimens found later at Durham, Conn., show the characters

now described.

1 Rept. Geol. Survey Ohio, vol. 1, pt. 2, Paleontology, 1873, p. 339.
2 Archives Musée Teyler, vol. 3, pp. 101-116.
3Mem. Geol. Survey United Kingdom, British Organie Remains, Decade 13, 1872.

Pp Pe a

oy yl

FOSSIL FISHES. We

T. C. Winkler has described two Ceelacanth fishes which may be com-
pared with Diplurus. Of these, the first is from the Solenhofen (Jurassic)
limestone, and he has called it Calacanthus Haarlemensis.’ This is in some
respects imperfectly preserved, but is apparently distinct from any other
described fish, although it deserves more careful comparison with Holoph-
agus gulo Kgerton. The specimen upon which Mr. Winkler’s description
was based is a fish about one foot in length, of which the outlines are
fringed and somewhat obscured by dendritic crystallizations of manganese
common in the Solenhofen fossils. The scales have all disappeared, but
some indications of their surface markings are visible at certain points. If
correctly reported these consist of fine, parallel, nearly straight lines run-
ning in an antero-posterior direction, This fish would also seem to be
peculiar in the strength of the ventral fins, which are represented as fully
equal in size to the dorsals. In this character it seems to be distinguished
from all other known members of the family. The surface markings of
the scales are like those of our Diplurus, but that fish is much larger, the
ventral fins are not so strong, and the supplemental caudal is more dis-
tinctly separated.

The second of the two species described by Mr. Winkler he called
Celacanthus giganteus.” This was obtained from the Trias of Wiirzburg.
Its derivation makes it of special interest for comparison with Dipluwrus, be-
cause no other Triassic Coelacanth is known. Unfortunately, however, the
specimen described by Mr. Winkler is a mere fragment. This indicates a
fish of enormous size. The caudal fin rays, the only ones yet known, are
six inches long and as large as goose quills; the supplemental caudal is
represented as small and as closely approximated to the anterior caudal.

Whether these fishes described by Mr. Winkler should really be in-
cluded in the same genus with the species of Celacanthus from the Coal
Measures and Permian remains to be seen. The general structure of all
the members of the family is so like, that much more material and that
well preserved, will be necessary before exact comparison can be made.
It is probable that the teeth will furnish the best diagnostic characters.
The teeth of our Carboniferous Celacanthus are certainly conical and

! Archives Musée Teyler, vol. 3, p. 101. 2 Tbid., vol. 5, p. 147,

74 TRIASSIC FISHES AND PLANTS.

acute, as is shown in several specimens in my possession. The teeth of
Holophagus can hardly be said to be known; those of Undina are stated by
Count Miinster and by Professor Huxley! to be pavement-like and tuber-
culated; finally, those of Macropoma are conical and acyite.

DipLurvus Loneicaupatus Newb.
Pl; XX, Figs. 1-5.

Diplurus longicaudatus Newb., Annals New York Acad. Sci., vol. 1, p. 127.

Fish attaining a length of three feet and a breadth of eight or ten
inches; body fusiform, symmetrical; head pointed, sloping rapidly down
from the occiput; back gently arched, anterior dorsal fin strong, sup-
ported by a semicircular bone; posterior dorsal placed nearly opposite to
the anal fin and midway between the anterior dorsal and the extremity of
the body; caudal fin very long, supported by thirty-two ? long and strong
rays, which are spliced on to the interneural and interhamal spines ;
supplemental caudal separated from the caudal fin by a distinct interval ;
in form it is an equilateral triangle about three inches on a side; the web
of this fin is supported by about nine simple fluted rays above and below,
of which the bulbous bases were inserted into the cartilaginous extremity
of the vertebral column, as posts are set in the ground; paived fins
strongly lobate; anterior fin rays of these and the two dorsal fins
roughened by many short, conical, acute spines; teeth unknown; scales
ovoid, half an inch in diameter, the exposed portion occupied by fine
parallel raised lines, running from front to rear.

Only four specimens and the head of a fifth have yet been found of
this the largest of our Triassic ganoids, and all these are now in the Geo-
logical Museum of Columbia College. Two of these specimens were
obtained in excavations made at Boonton, N. J.; the others were collected
by 8. W. Loper at Durham, Conn.

The smaller of the Boonton specimens is figured on Pl. XX of this
memoir. This is interesting, as showing the general form of the fish, the

position of the fins, ete., but the details of structure are not distinctly per-
ceptible. Another and much larger specimen was found at Boonton, but it

1Mem, Geol. Survey, United Kingdom, British Organic Remains, Decade 10, 1861, p. 17,

eA BS iw,

FOSSIL FISHES. 75

lay near the surface and was so much decomposed that it supplied little
information, except as regards size; it was about three feet in length.

The description of the genus and species published in the Annals of
the New York Academy of Sciences was taken from the Boonton specimens,
and, from their imperfect preservation, was in some respects erroneous.
One of the specimens obtained at Durham, though wanting the muzzle and
having the tail much decomposed, exhibits in other respects the beautiful
preservation characteristic of the Durham fishes. This shows the orna-
mentation of the scales copied on Pl. XX, Figs. 3-5, and spines on the fin
rays. Another quite imperfect specimen found at Durham was flattened
vertically, and shows a broad rounded head like that of a salamander, but
this outline is doubtless due to compression. Four out of the five specimens
of Diplurus known were found lying on the side, from which we may infer
that like most fishes it was broader vertically than transversely, and that
the rounded head of the specimen referred to above was the result of an
unnatural position accidentally assumed.

It is somewhat surprising that no distinct teeth can be discerned in
any of the heads of Diplurus yet found, though some impressions at the
extremities of the mandibles of one of the Boonton specimens indicate but
do not prove that the teeth were conical and acute. This is the character
of the teeth of Celacanthus and Macropoma, and it is probable that Diplurus
was the enemy and devourer of the many species of smaller ganoids with
which it was associated. Numerous large coprolites are found in the same
beds, and it would seem natural to refer them to Diplurus, but it is some--
what remarkable that none of these coprolites have yet shown any traces
of bones or scales such as we might expect to find in the exereta of fishes
which lived on ganoids.

In the absence of teeth we can not certainly determine whether Diplurus
was carnivorous or herbivorous. The coprolites referred to afford good
evidence that the Triassic estuaries contained in considerable numbers a
large fish which did not feed on the various scaled ganoids that abounded
in the same waters. On the other hand, it should be said that the head
bones of Diplurus, including cranium, opercula, maxillaries, and mandibles,

were all well ossified, much more so indeed than those of Catopterus or
) !)

76 TRIASSIC FISHES AND PLANTS.

Ischypterus ; from which we may infer that the dental apparatus was em-
ployed in serious and severe work of some kind. The only vegetable re-
mains found in the fish-beds of New Jersey and Connecticut are those of
land plants—fronds of cycads and twigs of conifers—and it is hardly prob-
able these could have formed the subsistence of Diplurus. Mollusks and
Crustaceans are entirely absent; so, unless he devoured the scaled ganoids,
of which the remains are so abundant, it is difficult to imagine of what his
food could have consisted. His structure shows that he was a swift and
powerful fish, and his congeners were carnivorous. We may expect there-
fore that, when his dentition shall be discovered, that will solve the problem»
by demonstrating his carnivorous habits.

AS beh ir:

FOSSIL PLANTS OF THE TRIASSIC ROCKS OF NEW JERSEY
AND THE CONNECTICUT VALLEY.

e)

SKETCH OF TRIASSIC FLORA.

The number of fossil plants obtained from the Triassic rocks of the
valley of the Connecticut and from New Jersey is not large, and as a gen-
eral rule they are not well preserved. A sufficient number of fairly good
specimens have, however, been collected at Sunderland, Mass., Durham
and Middletown, Conn., and at Newark and Milford, N. J., to demand a
brief notice.

These include the following species:

Schizoneura planicostata Rogers, sp. Otozamites brevifolius Fr. Braun.
bo} ?

Equisetum Rogersi Schimper. Cycadinocarpus Chapini Newb.
Equisetum Meriani? Brong. : Pachyphyllum simile Newb.
Clathropteris platyphylla Brong. Pachyphyllum beevifolium Newb.
Palissya Braunii Endl. Cheirolepis Miinsteri Schimper.
Palissya diffusa? Emmons, sp. Loperia simplex Newb.

Baiera Miinsteriana Saporta. Dendrophycus Triassicus Newb.
Baiera multifida Fontaine. Dioonites longifolius Emmons, sp.

Otozamites latior Saporta.

In addition to these are many ill-defined plant remains, some of which
indicate genera and species new to science ; others are decorticated stems
and branches, apparently of coniferous trees, probably Palissya. Some of
these are quite plain and smooth, but others are marked with lozenge-
shaped figures resembling a Lepidodendron from which the bark was stripped,
while the outlines ef the rhomboidal leaf scars remained. These have been
sometimes called Lepidodendra, but without warrant, and we have no evi-
dence that any species of Lepidodendron passed from the Paleozoic into the

Mesozoic Age.
79

80 TRIASSIC FISHES AND PLANTS.

No real plant-beds have been found in the northern Triassic areas, and
all the remains of plants yet met with seem to be floated fragments, that here

and there sank to the bottom of the basin and were buried in the accumu- |

lating sediments. In the sandstones, which were transported by rapid cur-
rents or were formed by shore waves, delicate plants and the foliary ap-
pendages of trees would naturally be triturated and destroyed, and in the
quarries from which building stone is taken at Newark stems and branches,
with an occasional cone, are all the plant remains that have survived the
rough treatment which they have received. These are, however, so numer-
ous in some of the layers, that they prove the former existence of land cov-
ered with vegetation at no great distance

At Milford, N. J., the plants are more numerous and somewhat better
preserved. There we find the stems of Equisetum and Schizoneura, with
many twigs and some cones of conifers. The Equiseta not unfrequently
show the diaphragms which partitioned off the stems at the joints, and, with
other things, we sometimes meet with disks or flattened cones of which
the surface is radiately striate and which have considerable resemblance to
some of the woody fungi, Polyporus, ete. These I have supposed may
have been the diaphragms of Hquisetum Rogersi, but they are not sufficiently
well preserved to justify any positive assertion in regard to their botanical
relations.

At Durham, Conn., the fronds of cyeads and ferns are not uncommon,
and one specimen obtained by Mr. Loper shows a number of fronds of
Otozamites radiating from what seems to have been the summit of a stem.
The fern fronds, too, are grouped in such a way as to illustrate the radiate
arrangement of the pinnee in Clathropteris.

The quantity of carbonaceous matter in the shales here is large, and is
so generally diffused that we must conclude it was largely derived from the
decomposition of plant tissue. This indicates the proximity of a consider-
able amount of growing vegetation at the time of the deposition of the
shales, and it is possible that somewhere near this locality plant-beds will
be found which will afford a better view of this vegetation.

In the Portiand quarries casts of the trunks and branches of trees are

not unfrequently met with, but they are always imperfectly preserved, and

SKETCH OF TRIASSIC FLORA. 81

we can only conjecture that they represent coniferous forests which grew
on the highlands at no great distance. Here, too, the remains of what
seem to be sea-weeds of a peculiar character are found in considerable
abundance. These show a striking resemblance to plants which have
been obtained from the Umbral shales of Pennsylvania and which have
been named Dendrophycus by Leo Lesquereux. The similarity is so great,
that I have ventured to describe them as a species of this genus, and have
called them Dendrophycus Triassicus. They will be found figured and
described more in detail in another part of this memoir.

At Hadley’s Falls, Sunderland, and, more rarely, at Boonton, the lay-
ers of shale are frequently covered with fragments of twigs of a conifer
which has been-sometimes referred to as a Voltzia, but, though the foliage
is dimorphous, some of the twigs are clothed with closely appressed, scale-

like leaves, while on others they are divergent, though always short and
thick. One cone-bearing twig of this plant, found at Sunderland, shows

distinctly that it is not a Voltzia, but is rather a Pachyphyllum.

This plant is apparently the same with that which has been considered
by Fontaine as identical with Cheirolepis Miinsteri of Schimper, but the
cone referred to shows that it is not Cheirolepis, the scales being small and
the exposed surfaces rhomboidal. At Milford, N. J., however, cones and
detached scales are found which apparently do belong to Cheirolepis, and
perhaps to C. Miinsteri. Numerous leaf-bearing twigs associated with these
concs show that the foliage was symmetrical and even elegant in character.
The branches spread in the same plane and, terminating in twigs pinnately
arranged, regularly diminishing in length, present somewhat the appearance
of Thuja or Moriconia, but the form of the leaf is quite different, being

short and triangular, similar to that of some species of Pachyphyllum.
MON XIv——6

DESCRIPTIONS OF GENERA AND SPECIES.

DENDROPHYCUS TRIASSICUS, N. sp.
Pl. XXI, Figs. 1, 2.

In the Geology of Pennsylvania, by H. D. Rogers (vol. 2, Pl. XXIID),
is represented a fossil plant which is designated as an ‘“‘algoid resembling a
Desmarestia.” This is fossilized in the red shale of the ‘‘Umbral,” a part of
the Lower Carboniferous formation in northern Pennsylvania. The fossil
consists of a number of branching stems from which are thrown off slender
dichotomous branches from either side, and these branches, cylindrical like
the stems, support numerous opposite or alternate simple branchlets. No
reference to this plant is made in the text, but it is evident that it is what it
is represented to be, a sea-weed, though its affinities with the living algee
may be a matter of doubt.

In the Report of the Second Geological Survey of Pennsylvania (vol.3),
Coal Flora, by Leo Lesquereux, a figure is given (Pl. I) of what is appar-
ently the same plant as that figured by Rogers. This is briefly described*
under the name Dendrophycus Desorv. It is said to occur in the red shale
below Pottsville, and also abundantly in the bluffs of the Susquehanna
above Pittston.

Splendid specimens of this plant are reported by Mr. Lesquereux® as
occurring ‘near Davenport, Iowa, in a bed of clay and hardened sand-
rock, traversing like a dike the Corniferous limestone overlaid by the Ham-
ilton group.” In his deseription of this plant Mr. Lesquereux says:

The roots or radicular appendages, * * * are apparently cyiindrical or tubu-
lous, * * * often branching at right angles, three or four mm. in diameter, of

1 Op. cit., pp. 699, 700, 2Op. cit., p. 701,
82

FOSSIL PLANTS. 83

coriaceous or horny texture shining on the surface. * * * The rhizoma is 1.20 to
1.50 m. long, perfectly cylindrical, 55 to 4 cm. in diameter, simple and regular in its
whole length, with a rough surface. * * * The top of the rhizoma, abruptly en-
larged into a globular shape resembling a cabbage head 17 cm, in diameter, looked,
when broken, like a convolute undeveloped frond, with branches densely rolled to-
gether into a ball where the divisions or the relative disposition of the branches could
not be distinctly observed. The fronds, very large, 1 to 1.25 m. long by 50 cm. broad,
are composed of cylindrical divisions, the primary and secondary ones being thick,
the larger 2 cm. in diameter, flattened on the surface, all gradually smaller from the
base to their ends, closely distichous, dichotomous, flexuous, with oblique multiple
subdivisions, the ultimate two-ranked being very closely pinnately distichous, eylin-
drical, pointed, or gradually narrowing from the middle and effaced at the apex.

I have copied this description nearly entire because it is almost. liter-
ally applicable to a plant represented on Pl. XXI of this memoir and ob-
tained from the sandstones of Portland, Conn. When we consider the vast
interval of time between the deposition of the Umbral shale of Pemsyl-
vania and that of the Rheetic sandstone of Connecticut, one the base of
the Carboniferous system and the other the summit of the Trias, it can
not fail to be regarded as interesting and surprising that the resemblance
should be so complete. But for the a priori improbability that a species of
sea-weed should be so long-lived I should hardly feel justified in giving
even a new specific name to the Triassic specimens. Possibly a comparison
of more material would show differences not now perceptible, but the pecu-
liar mode of growth and the details of structure seem to be essentially the
same. In the Portland sandstones, as in the Umbral shales, the fronds of
Dendrophycus are enrolled in masses that suggest cabbage-heads of large
size and rather loose texture, while the mode of subdivision and the char-
acter of the final ramifications of the frond are so like that, with the simi-
larity of the inclosing rock, the specimens from the two localities and
horizons are almost undistinguishable. Though a less conspicuous example
of a “persistent type” than Strophomena rhomboidalis or Atrypa reticularis
the survival of a sea-weed of such strongly marked character through so
great an interval is as unexpected as it is interesting.

Spirophyton, which begins in the middle Devonian (Corniferous) and
runs up into the Coal Measures, is another example of persistence in an allied
group of algze; but that genus is represented at the different horizons by

84 TRIASSIC FISHES AND PLANTS.

quite different species. One found in the Waverly has the frond divided
very much as in Dendrophycus, while im other species {n the same rock the
fronds are simply plicate or swollen into bulle apparently by vesicles which
served as floats. |

Barera Minstrerrana Ung.

PL XXII; Fig. 1,

We here give a representation of one of many specimens of a species
of Baiera, found by Mr. 8. W. Loper at Durham, Conn.

Taken by itself, the larger of these specimens (Fig, 1) weal seem to
represent a species closely allied to B. Miinsteriana, but somewhat taller and
more slender than any described variety of that species. Other fragments,
however, show that the fronds were sometimes much shorter and broader,
and therefore more like the normal form, so that at present we have scarcely
evidence that would justify us in separating them.

On PI. XXIII is figured a fine specimen of a gigantic Baiera, described
by Professor Fontaine in his monograph' with the name B. multifida. This
specimen is from Clover Hill, Va., and it is figured to show the close re-
semblance between the Virginia and Connecticut plants; the former is
much more robust, but the characters of the ultimate divisions are essentially
the same, and the northern plant may only be a dwarf form of the southern.

In my descriptions of the plants collected by Mr. A. Remond, from the
Triassic rocks of Los Bronces, Sonora, I have noticed and figured another
and quite different species of Baicra, to which I gave the name of Jeanpaulia
radiata, the generic name being practically synonymous with Baiera.’

Count Saporta has recently discussed at great length the probable rela-
tions of the groups of plants which have been known by the names of Baiera,
Jeanpaulia, ete.2 He regards them as belonging to a special line of gym-
nosperms which have come down to us from Carboniferous times, and are
now represented by the Gingko (Salisburia),

Schimper ‘ also describes the relations of Baiera and Jeanpaulia to each

“Mon. U. S. Geol. Survey, No. 6, 1833, pp. 87, 88,

® Report of the San Juan Expedition, p, 148; pl. VII, fig. 6.
* Paléontologie frangaise, Végétanx, vol. 3, 1833, p. 251.

1 Paléontulogie végétale, vol. 1, pp. 422, 682.

FOSSIL PLANTS. 85

other and to other plants, and he takes the apparently sensible view that the
Wealden Cyclopteris digitata Brong. (Baiera digitata Schenk) and the Rheetic
Jeanpaulia Miinsteriana Ung., though perhaps members of the same botan-
ical group, were generically distinct.

Brongniart and Unger regarded Jeanpaulia as one of the Rhizocarpe,
allied to Marsilia, but Schenk considers it a fern. He also supposes that it
is allied to Hausmannia of the Wealden. Its relation with the later genus
is, however, very doubtful.

From the Amboy clays of New Jersey, the basal portion of the Creta-
ceous system, and resting immediately upon the Triassic beds, I have ob-
tained many specimens of Hausmannia, and, though there is a remote re-
semblance in the mode of the division of the frond, there is a radical differ-
ence in the nervation, and they probably have nothing in common.

Equisetum Rocersr Schimper.
PL XXII, Figs. 5, 5a.

As is mentioned in the preceding sketch of the plants of the northern
Trias, Hquisetum Rogerst occurs at Milford, N. J. It is quite abundant in
the Richmond coal field and is mentioned by many writers who have refer-
red to the plants of that region, Rogers, Brongniart, Bunbury, Schimper,
and others. It is so fully deseribed by Professor Fontaine in his monograph
(p. 10) that only a brief reference to it is needed here.

Some specimens obtained at Milford, N. J., now in the collection of
Lafayette College, which I have been permitted to examine through the
courtesy of Prof. T. C. Porter, exhibit features which are worthy of remark.
One of these, a compressed stem, 6° in diameter, has the joints below only
2°™ apart, and on these are set in spiral arrangement disks which mark the
attachment of branches or roots such as we so frequently find in some spe-
cies of Calamites from the Coal Measures. These disks are much distorted
and obscured, but they would seem to have been elliptical in outline, 2°™
long by 14° wide.

In the same rocks and associated with stems of ELquisetum are the dis-
coid or low-conical, radiately striate bodies which I have already referred to

> ae a a A

86 TRIASSIC FISHES AND PLANTS.

and have supposed were the diaphragms of Equisetum. As these have not
been before figured I give herewith representations of the flattened base of

a small one and the conical, striated upper (”?) surface of another,

Equtsetum Meriant (?) Brong.

Some years ago Mr. J. B. Woodworth, now of Boston, Mass., then liv-
ing in Newark, N. J., sent to me, with a number of other fossil plants taken
from the sandstone quarries near that city, several fragments of a large
plant which gave no clew to its entire form, but of which the surface was
differently marked from anything I had before obtained from our Trias.
The fragments were flattened, only a few inches square, and the surface was
deeply impressed by a series of parallel, angular furrows and ridges, three-
eighths of an inch wide.

The general aspect of the fossil was very like that of a fan-palm, such as
we frequently find fossilized in the Tertiary rocks. It had also somewhat
the aspect of a Sigillaria, but the sharply angular form of the folds and
the absence of leaf scars forbade the supposition that we had here a relic
of the great fluted trees of the Coal period.

In reviewing the literature of the Triassic flora I have found' what are
apparently representations of the same plant. The fossils figured by
Schenk are considered by him as portions of the stems of Lquisetum Meri-
ant Brong. (Calamites Meriant Heer), a well-known plant of the Upper Trias
of Europe, later placed by Schimper in his genus Schizoneura.

Until the fructification of these Equisetoid plants of the Trias shall be
found which will permit a better comparison with those of older and later
formations, itis a useless expenditure of time to discuss the question whether
they are species of Calamites which have survived from the Carboniferous
age, are true Hquiseta, or are species of an extinct genus of that family. It
will be remembered that in the Permian rocks stems of Calamites have been
found a foot or more in diameter (C. gigas, Brong.), on which the longitud-
inal ridges are as broad as in the specimens before us, but in these the ribs

are rounded and not angular, as are those of the specimens from Newark.

'Schenk’s Beitriige zur Flora des Keupers und der Rhiitischen Formation, Bamburg, 1864, pl. VIII,
figs. la, 1b.

FOSSIL PLANTS. 87

This latter character may not, however, be a constant feature, as Schenk
gives a figure of one specimen’ in which the ribs seem to be rounded.

More material must be obtained before much can be said about the
botanical character of these specimens, but they possess much geological
interest from their evident similarity to those with which I have compared
them, and their occurrence at the same horizon confirms the testimony of
other fossils as to the Rheetic age of our sandstones.

ScHIZONEURA PLANICOSTATA Rogers, sp.

Portions of the stems of this plant, so common in the Triassic rocks
of Virginia, are occasionally met with in New Jersey, Connecticut, and
Massachusetts.

This was first described by Prof. W. B. Rogers as a Calamites, of
which it has very much the aspect, indeed, specimens of Calamites Cistii,
Brong., from the Coal Measures could hardly be distinguished from the
plant under consideration in some stages of preservation.

Professor Fontaine, in the Monograph cited (p. 14), has described this
plant from far better specimens than any which occur at the north, and has
given reasons for uniting it with Schizoneura of Schimper. Certainly the
stems bear a close resemblance to those of the group of plants which have
been described by Schimper, Schenk, Nathorst, and others, and found in the
Trias and Lias of Europe. But we have never seen any foliary appendages
which come very near to those of S. paradoxa figured by Schimper and
Mougeot in their monograph on the fossil plants of the Grés Bigarré. It
is probable that the leaves were narrowly linear, somewhat like those of
Schizoneura Virginiensis Fontaine, and were deciduous like the foliary ap-
pendages of Calamites, which are so rarely found in connection with the
stem. The only interest that attaches to the imperfect specimens yet found
in the northern Triassic basins comes from the evidence they furnish of

a close relationship between the deposits which contain them and those of
Virginia.

1Op, cit., pl. VIII, fig. la.

88 TRIASSIC FISHES AND PLANTS.

PacHYPHYLLUM SIMILE, nN. Sp.
Pl. XXII, Hig. 2:

Foliage dimorphous, on the large branches appressed, sometimes
seale-like, on the smaller twigs longer, crowded or open, leaves triangular
or falciform, keeled, pointed.

In the Triassic rocks of New Jersey, Connecticut, and Massachusetts
slender detached twigs of coniferous trees are frequently met with, but they
are usually fragmentary and not well preserved. They show two forms of
foliage, the appressed and the divergent, and they vary much in their
strength; some twigs being very slender, with comparatively remote leaves,
while on others the leaves are longer and more crowded. These differ-
ences are so marked that I have been led to think the specimens rep-
resent two species. Both these forms are represented on Pl. XXII, Fig.
2, the stronger and more leafy branches; Figs. 8, 3a, 3b, the more slender
twigs, with shorter leaves. To the first I have given the name Pachyphyllum
simile from its resemblance to P. peregrinum of the Jurassic. The other I
have ealled P. brevifolium. As will be seen by comparing Fig. 2 with the
representation of P. peregrinum given by Saporta,’ there is a marked
resemblance between them, but our plant never assumes the form shown in
the figures of P. peregrinum given by Lindley and Hutton’ or by Saporta on
Pl. XLVI of the volume just quoted. The two species are evidently allied
but are quite distinct. ;

This plant has been before found in America and has been figured and
described, though from bad specimens and erroneously. Prof. . Emmons?
represents a twig from Turner's Falls, Mass., the locality from which that
now figured was obtained. It is evidently the same thing, but is badly
figured and wrongly named Walchia. It does not belong to that genus and
can be referred with confidence to Pachyphyllum. Professor Fontaine, in
his Monograph, Pl. XLVII, Figs. 6, 7, represents twigs which are essen-
tially identical with the form now figured from Turner’s Falls. The larger

to)

of these two twigs is copied from Professor Rogers’s paper, but no locality

1 Paléontologie frangaise, végétaus, vol, 3, 1883, pl. XCVII.
* Fossil Flora, pl. LXXXVIII.
*Am. Geol., pt. 6, 1857, p. 108, fig. 76.

7
1g

etal

FOSSIL PLANTS. 89

is given. By Fontaine it is referred to Cheirolepis Miimsteri, but I have
elsewhere shown that it can not be a Cheirolepis; we find C. Miinsteri at
Milford, N. J., but it is plainly distinguishable from this both by cones
and by foliage. —

PAcHYPHYLLUM BREVIFOLIUM, I. Sp.
Pl. XXII, Figs. 3-3¢.

Foliage dimorphous, on some branches closely appressed and scale-like,
on terminal twigs divergent, though the leaves are always short and rela-
tively broad. Cones ovoid, one inch in length; scales rhomboidal, closely
appressed.

In many localities the Triassic rocks of New Jersey and the Connect-
icut Valley, especially where they are fine, gray, or more rarely reddish
shales, contain great numbers of slender coniferous twigs, generally short
and much broken up. Of these two forms are now figured which may be
recognized as typical. Figures 3 and 3a the more leafy, and 3b the more
scaly form. Sometimes we find twigs bearing leaves that are longer than
those here shown; leaves that are divergent, rather open, sometimes spat-
ulate, and never really acute. These may be a phase of the foliage of the
present species, but they more probably belong to P. simile, showing a sim-
ilar diversity of form to that seen in the figures of P. peregrinum given by
Saporta."

The plant under consideration has been noticed by Emmons and Fon-
taine; by the former it was considered a Walchia, and given the two names
W. brevifolia and W. gracilis Professor Fontaine® refers it to Chetrolepis
Miinstert Schimper; but the discovery of ovoid cones having small rhom-
boidal scales with twigs of this plant, and of digitate cone-scales with
branches bearing more acute leaves, have shown its distinctness from the
true Cheirolepis Miinsteri.

The specimens represented in Figs, 8a and 3c are from Turner's Falls ;

those in Figs. 8 and 3b from Durham, Conn.

* Paléontologie frangaise, végétaux, vol, 3, pl. XLVIII, figs. 2, 3.
2Am. Geol., pt. 6, 1857, pp. 107, 108, figs, 74, 75.
3 Mon, cited, pp. 88, 89.

90 TRIASSIC FISHES AND PLANTS.

CuerroLeris Miysterr Schimper.
Pl. XXII, Figs. 4, 4a.

In my general sketch of the Triassic. flora I have referred to this plant,
and have said perhaps all that it is necessary to say in regard to it. I
will only add that the foliage which I have described as expanded in the
same plane, and having somewhat the general aspect of that of Thwa or
Libocedrus, closely resembles that figured by Schenk in his Fossile Flora
der Grenzschichten, and the cone scales are also nearly identical with those
he represents; so that there would seem to be no good reason why they
should be regarded as distinct. Schenk calls this plant Brachyphyllum Min-
steri, but Schimper has shown that the digitate cone scales separate this
from all other species of that genus, and he makes it the type of his Cheiro-
lepis. The pinnate arrangement of the branchlets of our plant, which must
have given it the general aspect of Thuja, though the leaves are quite dif-
ferent, is not shown in Schenk’s figures, and it is therefore possible that
this will constitute a specific distinction ; but with so many other characters
in common it is scarcely probable that this is not also shared by the Euro-

pean and American plants.

OTOZAMITES LATIOR Saporta.
Pl. XXIV, Figs. 1, 2, 2a.

On another page of this memoir I have referred to the geological im-
portance of this plant, which is one of the several species common to our
Upper Triassic rocks and the Rheetie of Europe. Up to the present time
we have found this only at Durham, Conn., but it is there quite abundant.
The general character of the fronds is fairly represented in the figures now
given. They are from one foot to perhaps two feet in length, and from two
to three inches wide; broadest in the middle, where the obliquely set pin-
nules are two inches in length, narrow, linear, and pointed. Toward the
summit of the frond they are shorter and more crowded, while near the
base they are still shorter and somewhat irregularly placed. On the upper
side of the rachis the bases of the pinnules are elegantly adjusted to one
another in alternate order, the line of contact between them being sinuous or

_——_

FOSSIL PLANTS. 91

zigzag. The bases are auricled, the upper lobe is greatly developed, the
attachment being at a single point, and from this the fine and parallel nerves
radiate to all parts of the margin after the manner of the genus as shown in
Fig. 2a. .

On aslab of slate now in the possession of Mr. 8. W. Loper, at Dur-
ham, several of the fronds are shown radiating from a central area, proba-
bly the summit of the stem. Of the stem itself, which was doubtless some-
what succulent, we have as yet found no traces.

Locality, black shales, associated with Ischypterus, Catopterus, ete.,
Durham, Conn.

OTOZAMITES BREVIFOLIUS F. Br.
Pl. XXIV, Fig. 3.

Among the many fronds of Otozamites obtained at Durham there are
some of small size, set with short, crowded, rounded, or blunt-pointed pin-
nules. These correspond perfectly to some of the specimens of Otozamites
brevifolius figured by Saporta, Braun, Schimper, and Schenk. One of these
is represented on Pl. XXIV. We have not yet sufficient material for
comparing these fronds with those which I have referred to Otozamites latior,
but it has seemed to me possible that these two forms, which are here and
in Europe so frequently intermingled, may be but varieties of the same
species, the smaller fronds belonging to small plants or representing a spe-
cial stage of growth. Whether this is true or not, it is a matter of much
interest that we here find fronds which correspond so perfectly to those
common in the Rhetic of Germany and France.

In Schenk’s admirable memoir, Die fossile Flora der Grenzschichten,
Pls. XXXJ, XXXII, and XXXIV, a series of excellent figures are
given which perfectly represent our Durham eyeads, both the larger and
the smaller forms (Otozamites latior and O. brevifolius).

By Schenk they are considered to be ferns, as they were by Lindley,
and he unites the two forms under the name of Otopteris Bucklandi. Prob-
ably they should be united, but it is hardly possible that they are ferns.

Locality, Triassic shales, Durham, Conn., collected by 8. W. Loper.

92 TRIASSIC FISHES AND PLANTS.

Cycapinocarpus CHapint Newb.
Pl. XXIV, Fig. 4.

Fruit broad-oyoid, nearly orbicular, 15 mm. wide by 18 mm. long,
compressed, consisting of an ovoid nucleus bordered by a wing or margin
which is emarginate or notched above, narrowed and becoming obsolete
below; nucleus excavated in a broad sulcus, extending from the base to the
center of the fruit, and traversed centrally by a depressed line.

This interesting specimen was obtained at Durham, Conn, by Rey. J.
H. Chapin, to whose courtesy I am indebted for the opportunity of exam-
ining it. It is plainly the fruit of a cyead, and perhaps of Ofozamites latior,
which is quite common at the locality where it was found. It probabiy
consisted originally of a hard, ovoid, compressed nucleus, surrounded py a
sarcocarp covered with a leathery rind. When compressed in fossilization
the nut is shown in relief, and the envelope forms the margin about it. The
fruit of Cycas revoluta would present much the same appearance if subjected
to compression in clay. A large number of cycad fruits are known, but
there is none described with which I have been able to identify this.

Drio6nITEs LONGIFOLIUS Emmons, sp.
Pl. XXV, Fig. 4. :

One specimen only of this plant has yet been found in the Trias of
New Jersey, and that was taken from the quarries at Newark by Prof.
C. H. Hitchcock. It apparently represents the basal portion of a frond of
large size, the rachis being very strong. The pinnules of only one side are
shown. These diverge at a large angle, are linear, attached by the entire
base, and are decurrent.” Their complete length is not shown, but they
must have been at least two inches in length. They are separated by in-
tervals of about twice their breadth. The nervation is obscure, but appar-
ently fine and parallel. In many cyeads the basal pinnules of the fronds
are shorter, and in some more widely separated than those above. They
also diverge from the rachis at a larger angle. It is almost certain that if
we were to obtain the upper portion of the frond of which we here have the
base we should find the pinnules more approximated and diverging ata
more acute angle than is the case with those now before us. Hence we

FOSSIL PLANTS. 93

should have specimens closely resembling those figured by Dr. Emmons.
Of these, one (his Fig. 83) represents the middle part of the frond; the other
(Fig. 82) is from a higher portion. This is inferable from the fact that in
one the rachis is stronger and the pinnules are more separated and diverge
at a larger angle than in the other.

Dr. Emmons does not describe the nervation, but represents it as fine
and parallel. This would exclude it from the genus Cycadites, in which the
pinnules are traversed by a strong midrib. Both Dr. Emmons’s species and
that now figured belong clearly to Dioénites, as defined by Schimper."

LOPERIA SIMPLEX, N. sp.
Ply XEXV, Figs. 1, 25/3.

One of the most common plants found in the Trias at Durham, as
usually seen, is a straight, smooth, unjointed stem, once cylindrical, but
now much compressed and replaced by jet. Of some of these stems por-
tions have been obtained an inch or more in width and twelve or fifteen
inches in length, but the plant was evidently a large one, and these are
mere fragments of it. Recently Mr. 8. W. Loper has found specimens which
show more of this organistn than was before known, and some of these are
represented in our plate. Of these, that best preserved consists of a stem
such as I have described, but which divides above into a number of
branches, all springing from the same point. These branches are slender
and flexuous, and bear what seem to be alternate, linear, acute, grass-like
leaves, but in their state of preservation showing no nervation. This is ap-
parently the same plant as that figured by Emmons? and copied by Fon-
taine.’ Professor Fontaine refers to these specimens on pages 119 and 120,*
and ‘‘for convenience of reference” gives them the name of Bambusium
Carolinense. I venture to substitute for that name the one now given, as it
is quite certain that the plants under consideration had no close botanical
relationship with Bambusa (the Bamboo), which is a grass, and, like all the
Graminec, has jointed stems. Without more material it will be impossible
to determine with any certainty the botanical relations of this plant, but it

was most probably monocotyledonous, perhaps aquatic—a kind-of gigantic

1 Paléontologie végétale, vol. 2, p. 147. 3 Monograph cited, pl. LII, figs. 1, 2,
?Am, Geol., pt. 6, 1857, pp. 131, 132, figs. 99, 100, 4 Op. cit,

94 TRIASSIC FISHES AND PLANTS.

Schollera. The plant figured by Emmons’ is perhaps the summit of a
stem which divides into five branches, and his figure 102° represents a
smaller specimen with four divisions. This he compares with Baiera, but I
am led to doubt its connection with that genus, both from its manner of
branching and from the fact that, associated with the larger stems described
above, I have one even smaller than that represented by Emmons, in which
the stem terminates above in five nearly equal branches

CLATHROPTERIS PLATYPHYLLA Brong.
Pl. XXII, Fig. 6.

At Sunderland, Westfield, and Durham, in the Connecticut Valley,
fronds of Clathropteris have been frequently met with. Much more rarely
fragments of the same fern have been obtained from the coarser beds of
Newark and Milford, N. J.

In 1855 Edward Hitchcock, jr., deseribed® a portion of a frond of Cla-
thropteris found near Easthampton, Mass., about the middle of the Triassic
series. To this plant he gave the name of C. rectiusculus; but it has the
radiate arrangements of the lobes or pinnee which is characteristic of C.
platyphylla Brong., and its details furnish no characters, judging from his
figure and description, by which it can be distinguished from that species.
Clathropteris platyphylla is a very widely distributed fern in the Liassic and
Rheetie strata of the Old World, from England to India and China, and it
has been collected by Professor Fontaine in the Virginia coal series. Fronds
which I can not distinguish from those of this species also occur not unfre-
quently at Durham, Conn. These are always imperfect, but were evidently
of large size and had a digitate or radiate arrangement of the pinne.

The fragment now figured is a portion of the upper part of a pinna,
from the sandstone of Newark, N. J.

PaLissyYA? sp.
Pl. XXVI, Figs. 1, 2.

I give herewith representations from photographs of two views of a

coniferous trunk such as is frequently found in the sandstone quarries at

1Am, Geol., p. 131, fig. 99, 2 Op. cit., p. 133, 3Am, Jour, Sci., 2d series, vol, 20, 1855, p. 22,

FOSSIL PLANTS, 95

Newark, N. J. The decorticated surface of these stems is marked by rhom-
boidal elevations, which somewhat resemble the markings on the trunks of
Lepidodendron when denuded of their coaly envelope. This resemblance has
led to the announcement that Lepidodendron had been found in our Triassic
rocks, but this is a manifest error. Lepidodendron did not pass from the
Carboniferous to the Mesozoic age, and these are plainly casts of the trunks
of coniferous trees.

Since this was written my attention has been drawn to a figure of the
trunk of Voltzia Coburgensis Schaur (Paleontographica, vol. 11, p. 308,
Pl. XLVI, Fig. 2). This is so much like the trunk now figured and the
smaller ones not uncommonly met with in the quarries at Newark, that if
we had anywhere found in the Trias of this region any certain traces of
Voltzia 1 should have little hesitation in referring our specimens to that
genus; but no Voltzia has yet been found in the New Jersey sandstones,
while Palissya is rather common. Hence, I have been led to believe that
these trunks and branches bearing lozenge-shaped markings belonged to
the latter genus. As it was doubtless closely allied to Voltzia it would not
be at all surprising if we should find that the decorticated trunks of trees
of the two genera were much alike.

rH hae hn re er ee >!

; Ps eR

oe 4 sae <

Peta Ss»

pe Bea fee ce Te

Ca

w

IscHYPTERUS OVATUS

“SALVAO SNYALdAHOSI

ABAUNS 1V9ID01039 "Ss *N

AIX HdVHSONOW

131Wid

erland, | Las 3

2

nC. ie, Sup l

8s Marsni W.

SCHYPTERU

I

102

ee etl fie
$n aE aes, Flee:

U. 5S, GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

ISCF

MONOGRAPH XIV PLATE I!

SHIN.

U, & GEOLOGICAL SURV

\scHYPTERUS MARSHII

‘
e

LATE Tt

poe

U. S, GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

ISCHYP1

MONOGRAPH XIV PLATE Il

ASSIZII.

pears Sse pepe hme ns oi

ad hee .

f ;
tee 1 sl ’ ’ x on
sine 1) Su
} j ten
Ly : Ma
la

a ez

MONOGRAPH XIV PLATE iit
U. S$. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

ISCHYPTERUS AGAggizi),

_IscHYPTERUS MicropreRUS Ne
Fig. 1. Fish of average size

"SNYALdOYOIN SNYSALdAHOS!

ABAYNS 1¥91901039 "Ss "Nh

Al3ivid AIX HdVHYSONOW

ey

[

ee a

IscHYPTERUS TENUICEPS Ag., 1
Fies. 1, 2. Old individuals, showing extreme

ee 8.) Youngs etrce ences oeees
be i 108
t

MONOGRAPH XIV PLATE V

U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

ISCHYPTERUS TENUICEPS.

ale,

AT:

|

PI

i

U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY MONOGRAPH XIV PLATE VI

1. ISCHYPTERUS ROBUSTUS. 2, ISCHYPTERUS FULTUS.

*

PLATE VIL.

US |

ELEGANS

Mm

RUS

PTER

Fig. 1. Isc

Iscuyrr

2
3.

UE

'SCHYPTERUS

I

‘TENUICEPS Ag.,

-

112

U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY MONOGRAPH XIV PLATE VII

= ~ —— — — a —~

1. ISCHYPTERUS FULTUS. 2. ISCHYPTERUS ELEGANS. 3. ISCHYPTERUS TENUICEPS.,

PLATE VIII.

MON XIy——8

U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY MONOGRAPH XIV PLATE VIII

ISCHYPTERUS ALATUS.

A! ae Fig. 1. Young individual - ..-
2. Mature indivi :

MONOGRAPH XIV PLATE IX

U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

ISCHYPTERUS MODESTUS.

3

96

77°’ vee

ri eS ad ae he ee a " <*, . ae

‘ id
A = : ae

poe .
> . 4
>
~
=

'
.
.

Soe : a
. abe ag

< 1G. 1. ISCHYPTERUS |
Re 2,3. Iscuyprervs

a 7 & iy

U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY MONOGRAPH XIV PLATE X

1. ISCHYPTERUS ELEGANS, 2, 3. ISCHYPTERUS LENTICULARIS.

. i. . —r : : \

-
cin 5 Bee

er

4
Fs

U.

S, GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

MONOGRAPH XIV PLATE Xi

ISCHYPTERUS LINEATUS.

Dee be

PEAT Bh xXSeEi.

Page.

Pig, 1. ISCHYPTERUS MACROPTERUS W.C; (Rs, Boonton, Noid) 2 seem itee eee oe eee ete 41
2. ISCHYPTERUS MICROPTERUS Newb., Durham, Conn. Young individual..........----. 31

3. ISCHYPTERUS BRAUNII Newb., Weehawken, N.J. Young ....2....-.0- 2-005 ------- 43

122

U. S, GEOLOGICAL SURVEY MONOGRAPH XIV PLATE Xii

1. ISCHYPTERUS MACROPTERUS. 2. ISCHYPTERUS MICROPTERUS. 8. ISCHYPTERUS BRAUNII.

Fies. 1, 2, 2a.

<2

Pale eAC IE Xe nale:

Page

ISCHYPTERUS BRAUNII Newb., Weehawken, N. J ....--. .--------- seece- sense 43
TSCHYPTERUS LATUS) 0. EL ens. elainticld Nake seece ses aoe anes 46
ISCHYPTERUS PARVUS W. C. R., Turner’s Falls, Mass ...-.. .-.202 -<2--+ on Saye 45
; ISCHYPTERUS MINUTUS New)b., Durham, Conn: -. 22. .cccesecces eseeue cnceerisnes 48

124

U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY MONOGRAPH XIV PLATE XIII

—

1, 2. ISCHYPTERUS BRAUNII. 3. ISCHYPTERUS LATUS. 4. ISCHYPTERUS PARVUS. 5. ISCHYPTERUS MINUTUS.

Eos

als
"

Pia.

'
¥ xs D
ify us
eee 2 <a esi

Fic. 1. IscuypTERUS ELEGANS Newb.,
broad dorsal fin. .-- “e

126

U. 8. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY MONOGRAPH XIV PLATE XIV

1, 2. ISCHYPTERUS ELEGANS. 3. ISCHYPTERUS GIGAS.

ae

_

a eee ee ee

>

RV te

PLATE

2. Normal form of young individual ...--....----...

aa 3. Part of mature fish, showing details of fin
128
>
~
s

MONOGRAPH XIV PLATE XV

U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

CATOPTERUS REDFIELDI.

f

.

°

Dey)

PLAT

~¥

Sees ed CATOPTERUS GRACILIS J. H. Ry Box nyN. J. Mi ture

2,3. Caroprercs Graciiis J. H. R., Boonton, N J. Po
individals of slender form=2.-2---22 2-22. -

4, 5. CATOPTERUS PARVULUs W. C. R., Boonton, N. J

130

U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY MONOGRAPH XIV PLATE XVI

Ss

oes

1, 2,3. CATOPTERUS GRACILIS. 4,5. CATOPTERUS PARVULUS.

PA el

Pd Paks

R Ne

INO.

m

RUS

4, CaTOPrTE

1, 2, 3,

Fis.

U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY MONOGRAPH XIV PLATE XVII

_

if,
Ser hfs
Poem ee Hs

CATOPTERUS MINOR.

A i
) rae
i,

«
1
wv,
“
’
set
: ‘
ee =
© <
lly
ee eee + Vee 2 ee erento ot ee) Ee eee eee

ceo i | | |

OS ed ee ee

IE ANU I, ONY IE ILI

Page.

Fics. 1, 2. DicryoryGrE MacrRuRA Egerton, Clover Hill, Va -..--.. ...220.02-0- eee neneen--== “6
3. CATOPTERUS ORNATUS Newb., Durham, Conm ces. 202-2 -4--5-2 02-2 eee een eee 58

od, Seales of. dorsalilineenl argc dice sacs en ele ara are ate eee ate eee 58

3D; (SCALES Of S1Ce ONAL GCC aa a apatite erate ie ot teroy stare meee ee ee ee ee 58

4. CATOPTERUS sp., young, Durham, Conn.... .. Spee Rip SOOEneiaase. “leo etn age sooras 50

5. CATOPTERUS ANGUILLIFORMIS W. C. R., Durham, Conn......-.......--.<----=--- 59

134

U. S, GEOLOGICAL SURVEY MONOGRAPH XIV PLATE XVIII

ie z

eee

a

1, 2. DICTYOPYGE MACRURA. 3. CATOPTERUS ORNATUS. 4. CATOPTERUS. 5, CATOPTERUS ANGUILLIFORMIS.

=)

<< all By

a

ee ee

*

.

Be ox be

‘ ef, - 7
a PilA PE Sree
Figs. 1, 2. PrycHoLrris: Marsair Newb., Durham, na Bee Se
Qa. Seales, enlarged .....-.-....- . Sis
3, 4. ACENTROPHORUS CHICOPENSIS Newb.,
4 *

U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY MONOGRAPH XIV PLATE XIX

———

1, 2. PTYCHOLEPIS MARSHII. 8, 4. ACENTROPHORUS CHICOPENSIS.

Jeeps ae Bea) ane, Gy. Ca

Fic, 1 : eda te :
2. Gechita caudal fin, Boonton, N. hk See eee oe Beeb RO eso esoe Aree eae

3,4. Seales outer surface, showing ornamentation, natural siz Durham, fopne 5

5. A group of scales showing inner surface, Durham, Conn......

138

a}

‘7 res

my
i
vr —
;
<
‘ *
t
=

DIPLU

AUDATUS,

=
J - =
;
*
; e PT be »
< - ye <
- 7 =~ "] _
a
oe ’
TS ; ;
: — a r,

- , : +

PAX XT,

Newb., Portla

on of a

remities

/ DENDROPHY

d, Conn

of branches.

frond.
up

of a

TRIASSICUS

Basal porti
E:

1
2.

Fie. 1

140

U,

S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY MONOGRAPH XIV PLATE XXI

a ||

DENDROPHYCUS TRIASSICUS.

see RS oe Xe EE

Pa PAE eo ee

“Fic. 1. BATERA MUNSTERYANA (?) Ung., Durham, Conn...-.--. -
2, PACHYPHYLLUM SIMILE Newb., Sunderland, Mass .....

/ 3. PACHYPHYLLUM BREVIFOLIUM Newb .........--.-----

oo. hwig with divergent leaves) ss... -.4 ssctees ee cecste ase

3b. Twig with appressed leaves. 2.225.202 -- c-.s2 ess cee

QC mUONE 22 0\2sexit0 Soe Ween ca Deen coe OS. te cn ir naan oe

y 4, CHEIROLEPIS MUNSTER? Schimper, sp., Milford, N. J --

pda. Coneiscale. ise cece gece ee nee reise eneae mee eet aeons
yp? PHRAGMA OF EquiseTUM RoGerst Schimper, Milford, N.J-...---..---- Sesees Toeaee
, oa. PHRAGMA OF EQUISETUM ROGERSI, under side..............--...---- Seceueeees
’
6. CLATHROPTERIS PLATYPHYLLA (?) Brong., Milford, N. J.......-.---------- -a--

. CLATHROPTERIS PLATYPHYLLA (?) Brong., Milford, N. J
e

142

90

U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY MONOGRAPH XIV PLATE XXII

1. BAIERA MUNSTERIANA. 8. PACHYPHYLLUM BREVIFOLIUM. 5. PHRAGMA OF EQUISETUM ROGERSI.
2. PACHYPHYLLUM SIMILE. 4. CHEIROLEPIS MUNSTERI. 6. CLATHROPTERIS PLATYPHYLLA.

, x
yf Soi id ‘ .
; ‘
' *
a
:
é
x sy
i
:
. *

iii

a

\ Barera mcurrripa Fontaine, Clover Hill,

: 144

PLATE Xxill

MONOGRAPH XIV

U. 8, GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

BAIERA MULTIFIDA,

VG PS

cael Bala)

ee

MON XIV

Pe A Es ee Vee

> F iG. is OTOZAMITES LATIOR Saporta, Durham, Conn. Base of frond, natural size......-..-.
. OTOZAMITIES LATIOR Saporta, Durham, Conn. Summitof frond ......---...----.- se

2a. Portion enlarged: to, show Mervation ...- <. 2226 s42~ eosin ce ee pose See eee eae tae

3. OTOZAMITES BREVIFOLIUS Fr. Br., Durham, Ohne SEO Reo arnO BEG CeSa5 OSScet cise

4, CYCADINOCARPUS CHAPINI Newb, Darian, COUN eae ease ee ee

146

MONOGRAPH XIV PLATE XXIV

U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

4. CYCADINOCARPUS CHAPINI.

3. OTOZAMITES BREVIFOLIUS.

1, 2. OTOZAMITES LATIOR.

VFra. 1.
yo 2
, 3
V 4,

u

+ LE Te SERVE
Loperta SIMPLEX Newb., Durham, Conn, Main stem much f
(Branch and Weaver - cos qi eareeeeiee ae = ease ele eee
Branches springing from stem, Durham, Conn ...---.----..---
DrioGNITES LONGIFOLIUS Emmons, sp., Newark, N. J. -.-..-------

148

*

ar
*-

4 ay

U. 8. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY MONOGRAPH XIV. PLATE XXV

1, 2, 3. LOPERIA SIMPLEX. 4. DIOONITES LONGIFOLIUS.

_

- 7
er

>

Nad bis at5 ISP, lee

Figs. 1,2. Trunk of conifer (Palissya?) decorticated, showing r
PACE MNCRARK ON et oon eee aicem= sence

“(2 WASSINVd) YSSINOO SO MNNYL

to

039 "Ss "nN

A3ZAHNS 1V9I9O"

AIX HdVHYSONOW

IAXX 3Lv1d

Page.

Acentrophorus, generic description of .........----- 67-69
affinities of, with Ischypterus 67
alliances of, with Palzoniscus 68, 69
chicopensis, description of ........ 69
Agassiz, L., cited ...-.. Pent ae cee aasatectecsscas ccs 20, 41
TINGE cearecersace Bock e oles SSD nae nors 12
Miinsteriana, description of......-.- 84

multifida, resembles Minsteriana. - -
Bird or reptile tracks
Bunbury, C.J. F., cited...

Catopterus, generic description of .........-..-.--- 50, 51
most beautiful of fossil fishes .........---....--- 51
not found in Mesozoic rocks of Old World...... 51
RRGcIPSOh rece) seu~ ssc es 19-21
gracilis, allusions to --- -11, 19, 22
(EO Wh HOG) ToesesseS ee ansose ecncs 55-57
Redfieldi, structure of head of 53
description of 53
form of 60
macrurus 20, 21
minor, description of. . . 57, 58
inkin) ToC omeatnsiacea sme ee toca sneer 58
ornatus, description of ..--.. Saeasete nsAcaeeee 58
of form and size of C. minor................--. 59
anguilliformis, description of.................-.. 59
parvulus, description of........ : 59
Chapin, J. H., acknowledgments to. - A 92
Cheirolepis Miinsteri, account of. . pas 90
Clathropteris platyphylla. ..-.. aa a ae ete 12, 94
Coal measures of Pennsylvania .............--..---. 8
Colorado, fossils from .--......- 2
Connecticut, fossils from.....
Cycadinocarpus Chapini .....
MBAs WW Mi CILAU sok seenee cise sek ean acs/sanaue
Dendrophycus triassicus, description of..........--- 83
in Portland sandstones ....-...-.--. ..----.---.- 83
Dictyopyge, generic description of..-.............-. 61-64
previously considered Catopterus macrurus 62
differences of the genera .......--.....------.--. 63
comparison of fishes of American Trias-........ 63
macrura, description of ............ --.---.-.--. 11, 64
Diplurus, generic deseription of.......--...-...---.. 70
comparison of, with living siluroids...-......... 7
resemblance of, to Ceelacanthus, Holophagus, and
MACRO OM Mists sete oe enema dawn eee ase 71,72
longicaudatus, description of..........--.....--. 74-76
Divonites longifolius, description of...-.---......--. 92, 93
Egerton, P., cited -......... xi, 11, 20, 25, 28, 34, 53, 56, 63, 65, 72
(mernon Bek; citediss. co. asa acnseeeeecon es cee xiii, xiv
Emmons, E., cited xi, 9, 10, 12, 32, 88, 49
Equisetum Rogersi, description of............-..-.. 12, 85
(MerIBDE (DS tee. cs a caateones mocdeniueebone 86
resemblance of, to Calamites gigas ......... 86
Barynotus tenuiceps:--2-2.--.22--sseeres soe coneee | 1D) 24

Page.
Fontaine, W. M., cited xi, 10, 12, 13, 87-89, 94
Fossil fishes, Triassic, list of, from Trias of New Jer-

| sey and Connecticut.................---.--- 23
Fossil plants, lists of, ftom Trias of New Jersey and
| COC Tag AL eer Er eee eas Secs ee. 79
Gratacap, Pn aitedees-..,-cc-cee een een sees oe eas 4L
Geologic equivalents of Triassic rocks. . 8
Heer, O., cited.-.....- 10
Hills, R. C., cited 22
Hitcheock, C. H., acknowledgments to ...-...-.--.-. 92
Hitehcock, Ei: citeds2- essa. 22e) Je sr ~ an eer oc 9, 12, 32, 45
HMitchcook, Hijri cited. uceeenis ceases aoe ee OL
Howell, E. E., cited.-...... Soe CG La Sitioce sooo sc 22
Huxley, 0. \H.eited: 222.2252. - scene 71, T4
Ischypterus, generic description of
allicd to Semionotus .........--..--.-- 4
@llied) topueni lots eee eetes sp ereect neater
characteristics of genus-.....-=..-.--.-...<..---
BpCcleshofiyewn- -yecln te sews eee nese mie
Agassizii, description of .....-...---.-.------.-.
latus, description of---..-

ovatus, descripiion of....
Marshii, description of. - -
TONEMDLENWICEA feet senmielaio an dee e a ee eter
micropterus, description of
tenuiceps, description of...
resembles I. ovatus .---

fultus, description of -....-.
allicd to P. macropterus ..-.......-.......--.-
robustus, description of .....--.-..----.--.-----
ALGO TOL O WSUS tome -an eaten ome en ee melee 36
We AIGA Gorse MIONGUNS yas caste seen ee 36
elegans, description. of.--...---.-..--.---- : 37
resemblance in form to I. lineatus......-.-.-.. 37
alatus, description Of = 22-5 - 2. se. ences a-sane == 37
modestus, description of ----....-...-..--.------ 38
MG NS EE NS) Somecos oaotsoe oncncaenoe=c 38
lenticularis, description of -.- a5: 39
similar in form to I. ovatus ...--.-----.. 39
differentiated from I. micropterus .-...- = 39
lineatus, description of .-........-...-..--.---.- 40
differences from I. tenuiceps, I lenticularis, I.
elegans, and I. fultus ........-..--. Be Sosecase 40
closely allied to I. alatus...-....-......---.-.. 40
macropterus, description of. .-...-.--...--.----- 41
resemblance to P. macropterus, P. fultus, and
Ds HUET Smee ws SAP eb aa Noe aan asece ane 41, 42
Braunii, description of .-----..-.- See ee ee 43
intermediate between I. tenuiceps and Acen-
trophorus chicopensis..-.-...-----..-.------- 44
reasons for classifying, as a species distinct
from P. latus and I. latus 44
parvus, description of.......--.-..--.-.- 45
reasons for classification .......-...-.----.---. 45

i rs

ow

Ce

ee a let §
A ad

=e Eee

152

Ischypterus, minutus, description of.......-.....--.

gigas, description of ........----.--- Se eee ee ntenenl
Rink by; daiW \Olved) so clwnanclennesen=m=sceneennns
Lesquereux, Leo, cited.-.--..- Sry eng
Loperia simplex .-----------.-+-00+----+--+-----0---

Loper, S. W., Gecnerleaemcnta to....... xiv, 51, 54, 56, 63, 67,
74, 80, 84, 91, 93 Fereholays, generic de

Hay Gli, C7, 01000 = =-m-\<---e vn «+---9, 10, 20, 28, 53 Marshii, description 1 of
Macroteniopteris magnifolia .........----.---------- Bollensis, how differentiate
Marcon, J., cited ........-..-- curtus, characteristics of
Marsh, O. C., cited...-.-.--- Redfield, J. H, cited ...--
Marsh, O. C., acknowledgments to .--..---.--------- oe or Ae: Ss
Massachusetts, bird tracks in..-.....-...--.-- ----- xi,12 | Redfield, W. G., cited. .xi, 19, 22, 26, 30, 34-36, 41,

fossils in ....--. Joc eteceeeee 21, 27, 29, 30, 34, 45, 47, 67, 70,79 | Redfield, W. C., acknowledgments to...
New Jersey, fossils from.......-.... xiii, xiv, 5-8, 11, 12, 19-95 Remond, A., acknowledgments to --...----
Rew Mexico, TOSSIS ACO) cen tase meals monn eines mei mins 14 | Rogers, H. D., cited .-..---- eee Oat
New York, fossils from -.-- zene 4 | Rogers, W. B., cited. -
North Carolina, fossils from - . xi, 4,9-12, 22 | Russell, I. C., cited.....-.-- eee .
Ohio, fossils from..--...--.-.- aes xii | Russell, I. C., acknowledgments to.-...-.--..------ =
Otozamites latior ..--..-----.---------+----+-----+-+ 13 | Saporta, G., cited

geological importance and general character of 90 | Schenk, A., cited ..
tbrevitolias <9 2----e 2 - comet en seamen 91 Schizoueneh plantoostata ca -cacu-- 92> acs aeeee
Macombii 14 | Semionotus, resemblance to Ischypterus. aes

Pachypbyllum simile, description of ..-.-..----.---- BB) eSinuver wey Cileder == esse nan ene ke aeeame eee
resemblance of, to P. peregrinum .--.-.------- 88 | Stuart, R. Le cited oe Hear
brevifolium, description of..---.. . 89 | Teeniopteris magnifolia .
Palwoniscus, species of. ...-.---2 -- -see0e2------ nee “19, 20; 20a SPaylor a Grenee ase
SMT SSeee ree sce eke eer oe bane cpecenen cers 19,24 | Thecodont saurians .--

POS waist ae eet 19 | Traquair, R. H., cited .
ovatus, description of. 97,28) ||| Witassic fishies, Jist/ Of 2. — once. cr emma ene ee
resemblance to Ischypterus tenuiceps .--..--- 28 | Virginia, fossils from. - xi, 4, 10-12, 20, 22, 62, 63, 84
THAMES Ch) ecoceadsessecconseune Hegedaces AeooR nated 9495; | Whitfield! R, Ps cited 2. s.c-ceed-ee omer eee i
Brannile- see e w= 13 | Winkler, T. C., cited
Pecopteris bullatus 14 | Woodworth, J. B., acknowledgments to ......--..--.
= 2)

i

229

ll

|

|

|

|

|

3 9088 01363 2

SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION LIBRA