GEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF Siw JERSEY

# art THE
|| ANNUAL REPORT OF THE STATE GEOLOGIST
as FOR

= 1904

ie . a A BRIEF
GENERAL ACCOUNT
_ OF FOSSIL FISHES

| -—s THE TRIASSIC FISHES OF NEW JERSEY

BY

C. R. EASTMAN

TRENTON, N, J.
- MacCretiisn & Quictey, STATE PRINTERS,

1905

Ltd

Ta

we Wi

a i\g2b

PART. Ti:

—_———_——_——

The Triassic Fishes of New Jersey.

By C.R. EASTMAN.

(27)

SMITHSON IAyy

“JAN 15 1988
LIBRARIES

A Brief General Account of Fossil Fishes.
BY CR. EASTMAN, HARVARD UNIVERSITY.

SUMMARY.

1. Province of paleontology and its relations to other natural sciences.

2. General notions of paleichthyology; some generalizations resulting from
its study.

Geological time-scale.

Introduction and succession of the class of fishes.

Characteristic forms of fish life in the Devonian system.

Geological history of Elasmobranchs, Lung-fishes and Ganoids.

General nature of the Boonton Triassic fish fauna.

Discussion of probable physical conditions and causes of destruction of
fish life in the Newark beds.

9. Brief survey of the progress of paleichthyology.

10. Progress of our knowledge of American Triassic fishes.

OI ANA w

Province of Paleontology.—It having been suggested by the
State Geologist that a presentation in untechnical language of
the leading facts brought to light by the study of fossil fishes of
New Jersey, together with some statement of their relations to the
science of paleontology in general, would be of interest to a
wide class of readers, the following section of the report has
been prepared in accordance with that idea, detailed systematic
descriptions being reserved for a separate chapter. Owing to
the large number of persons whose attention has been attracted
in one way or another to the remarkable fish remains found at
Boonton and elsewhere, it is taken for granted that a lively
interest exists in questions concerning their origin, their rela-
tions to extinct and modern forms, and the conditions under
which they met their death and became preserved in the rocks.
These and kindred topics it is our purpose to examine into in the
following pages.

£29)

30 ANNUAL REPORT OF

Probably everyone has some notion of what is meant by the
term fossil. Strictly defined, fossils include the remains or traces
of plants and animals that have lived during former periods of
the earth’s history, and whose remains or other indications have
become preserved in the rocks. By the process of petrifaction, as
it is called, the hard parts of animal bodies, such as the shelly coy-
ering of mollusks, crustaceans, echinoderms (sea-urchins, star-
fish, etc.), or the internal skeleton of vertebrates, become replaced
by mineral matter, all organic substances being converted into
stone. Horney chitinous tissue undergoes a similar process; and
certain other substances, such as vegetable matter, feathers, and
in rare instances animal integument, become carbonized. But
almost invariably the soft parts of dead bodies suffer decomposi-
tion either before or after burial in the preserving medium, thus
leaving no traces in the rocks. It is only under exceptionally
favorable circumstances that muscular fibre, dermal coverings,
cartilage, or internal organs (such as the swim-bladder, walls
of the intestinal canal, or egg-cases of cartilaginous fishes) have
been preserved in recognizable condition. Nevertheless, con-
ditions have sometimes permitted even the most delicate struc-
tures, such as insects’ wings and impressions of jelly-fishes, to
become retained in the soft mud, which afterwards became
solidified. Localities famous the world over for the beauty and
delicacy of their fossil remains are the lithographic stone quarries
of Bavaria and the department of Ain, France. An inquiry into
the conditions under which these deposits were laid down sug-
gests with much plausibility that they represent filled-in lagoons
of coral atolls.

It is worthy of remark that any investigation of fossil faunas
takes into account all questions relating to the environment of
the forms represented, the climatal and geographic conditions
amidst which they flourished, their food, habits, migration, and
genetic relations to other species. In a word, we have not only
to consider the nature of organic remains which have become
preserved in the fossil state, but must also reconstruct as ac-
curately as possible the conditions that were operative during
their lifetime, approaching them in the same manner as we would
organisms of the present day. ‘There is, therefore, no essential

THE STATE GEOLOGIST. 31

difference between zoology and palzontology, it being evident,
as Huxley has said, that “fossils are only animals and plants
which have been dead rather longer than those that died yester-
day.” In the same way, paleichthyology, or that branch of nat-
ural science which treats of fossil fishes, extends our information
from the existing fauna back to the earliest advent of vertebrate
life upon our globe, and furnishes important information concern-
ing the mode of succession and evolution of one of the great
classes of back-boned creatures, the ground-type of that remark-
able sequence of forms whose culmination is man.

Right at the outset we are brought face to face with the all-
important and all-pervading doctrine of evolution, which forces
upon us the truth that man is an organism amongst organisms,
his origin and history being in nowise disassociated from the
origin and history of other living creatures in the world. Let
us once appreciate the intense human interest in the study of
organic creation, once recognize the fact that geology reveals
an elaborate history of organisms that have successively popu-
lated the earth from the time life first began, and it is clear that
we enter upon a most fascinating field for research. Stripping
paleontology of its more technical aspects, and looking upon it
in a broad way as part of universal history, the foremost question
we should seek to answer is, what general principles or laws are
revealed by this history? Having ascertained what these laws
are, we have next to interpret them philosophically, to ascertain
the underlying cause or causes to which they are attributable.
Do they of themselves afford a satisfactory summing up of the
operation of natural processes which have always been at work
in the world, and have the latter merely happened to behave in
this manner—fortuitously, rather than in some other manner—
or do they suggest a teleological explanation, in that they reflect
the presence of ulterior plan and design?

In respect to these fundamental problems, paleontology vastly
enlarges the material at our disposal for philosophical analysis,
furnishing at the same time a most important aid and ally to
cognate sciences like zoology and embryology; and the extent to
which these sciences severally supplement one another is indeed
remarkable. A word may be said to illustrate the truth of this

32 ) JANNUAT REPORMZOR

statement. Let us imagine the evidence of fossils to be excluded;
and let the zoologist, whom we may suppose is acquainted only
with the modern fauna, be required to frame a theory of evolu-
tion. He will at once perceive that animals belonging to certain
groups resemble one another more or less closely, but the groups
themselves are widely separated; and, moreover, in some of them
there exist wide gaps without any hint that they were ever filled
or bridged over by intermediate forms. Holding in his grasp
merely the ends of disconnected threads, how is the zodlogist to
prove their continuity, how demonstrate that they have all di-
verged from a common strand? Is it not equally logical for him
to maintain, under the assumed limitations, the doctrine of
special creation, and deny that the most extreme types of varia-
tion are linked by common ancestry ?

All the way from a quarter to half a century ago, before
paleontology had made its great strides in advance, the con-,
ditions we have imagined were altogether real, and the lacune_
between genera, families and higher groups presented a diffi-
culty which it appeared unreasonable to explain by an appeal
to the imperfection of the paleontological record. On the one
hand the doctrine of evolution required these gaps to be filled,
on the other no evidence was forthcoming to show that they
ever had been filled. An interesting anecdote is related of the
elder Agassiz by one of his students, Professor A. S. Packard,*
which illustrates the attitude of the great naturalist toward
evolution in his latter years. At the close of a lecture on
Limulus, the horseshoe crab, in which Agassiz advocated the
view that it does not stand as an isolated form in creation, but
is descended from the common stem of jointed animals, the mas-
ter strode up and down in a state of evident excitement, and
then, as Packard recalls, “remarked to us with one of his most
genial smiles on his lips: ‘I should have been a great fellow for
evolution if it had not been for the breaks in the palzeontological
record.’ We replied: ‘But, Professor, see what great gaps have
been filled by the recent discoveries of birds with teeth, and of
Tertiary mammals connecting widely separated existing orders.’

* Amer. Nat., vol. xxxii (1898), p. 164.

THE STATE GEOLOGIST. 33

And then, with a few more words, which we do not distinctly
remember, we separated. * * * And so it is, in youth the
older naturalists of the present generation were taught the doc-
trine of creation by sudden, cataclysmic, mechanical ‘creative’
acts; and those to whose lot it fell to come in contact with the
ultimate facts and principles of the new biology had to unlearn
this view, and gradually to work out a larger, more profound,
wider-reaching, and more philosophic conception of creation.”

One of the chief merits of paleontology is that it has within
recent years brought to light a wealth of facts which establish
beyond dispute the continuity of life; and reveal, often in most
circumstantial manner, how modern forms have been derived
from antecedent forms, thus pointing to the conclusion that all
animals and plants have sprung from a few primitive common
ancestors. Though now all but universally accepted, the doctrine
of evolution has been long in gaining ascendancy over the minds
of men, and we are unable to declare that the newer views are
at variance with the time-honored teleological explanation. Any-
one who has read the late Professor Joseph Le Conte’s ‘“‘E,volu-
tion in Relation to Religious Thought,” or Huxley’s “Scientific
Essays,” or similar works, must have been convinced that the
evolutionary hypothesis strengthens rather than weakens the claim
that the workings of Nature are but the expression of a divine
intelligence. There are those who maintain it is unnecessary to
conjure up a deus ex machina to explain physical processes; and
opposed to these there are others, rather in the majority we think,
who declare that the whole system would be unintelligible with- °
out purposeful design—hence the assertion that the present order
of things has come about as the result of hazard is contrary to
our senses.

Paleontology may not hope to answer such vital and far-reach-
ing questions as these; and yet it is not vain to expect from it
light concerning the nature of the problems involved, and con-
cerning our manner of viewing them. A very learned, very high-
minded, very reverent paleontologist, for many years President
of one of the sections of the French Academy, has thus apos-
trophized the sources of our information in regard to creation:
“We cannot refrain from looking with curious admiration upon

3 GEOL

34 ANNUAL REPORT OF

the innumerable creatures that have become preserved to us
from earth’s early days, and calling them to life again in our im-
agination. We interrogate these ancient inhabitants of the earth
whence they were derived: “Speak to us and say whether you
are isolated remnants, disseminated here and there throughout
the immensity of the ages, without an order more comprehensible
to us than the scattering of flowers over the prairie? Or are
you in verity linked one to another, so that we may yet be able,
amid the diversity of nature, to discover indications of a plan
wherein the Infinite has stamped the impression of his unity”
The unraveling of the plan of creation, this is the goal toward
which our efforts aspire nowadays.” +

General Notions of Paleichthyology.—li this cursory review
of the scope and province of palzeontology has shown us anything,
it must convince us that fossils are to be regarded as precious and
authentic historical documents, which, in so far as they
reveal important truths of nature, have vastly widened our com-
prehension of the organic world, and materially assist us in arriv-
ing at a unification of truth. What is true of fossils in general
is true in particular degrees of fossil fishes, which we have now
to consider somewhat more fully. Enough has already been saic
to show that the history of the group of fishes, the most primitive
and most ancient of the vertebrate phylum, is of fascinating inter-

* Gaudry, A., Les Enchainements du monde animal, etc., p. 3. Paris, 1883.

The continuation of this striking passage we shall do better to give in its.
original choice diction, as follows:

“Les paléontologistes ne sont pas d’ accord sur la maniére dont ce plan a
été réalisé; plusieurs, considérant les nombreuses lacunes qui existent encore
dans la série des étres, croient a Il’ indépendance des espéces, et admettent que
l’Auteur du monde a fait apparaitre tour a tour les plantes et les animaux des
temps géologiques de maniére a simuler la filiation qui est dans sa pensée; d’
autres savants, frappés au contraire de la rapidité avec laquelle les lacunes.
diminuent, supposent que la filiation a été réalisée materiellement, et que Dieu
a produit les.étres des diverses époques en les tirant de ceux qui les avaient
précédés. Cette derniére hypothése est celle que je préfére; mais, qu’ on
l’ adopte ou qu’ on ne !’ adopte pas, ce qui me parait bien certain, c’ est qu’ il y
a eu un plan. Un jour viendra sans doute ot les paléontologistes pourront
saisir le plan qui a présidé au développement de la vie. Ce sera la un beau
jour pour eux, car, s’il y a tant de magnificence dans les détails de la nature,
il ne doit pas y en avoir moins dans leur agencement général.”

THE STATE GEOLOGIST. 35

est. Apart from its intrinsic interest, the study of fossil fishes
deserves a high place in our esteem on account of its having re-
vealed certain fundamental truths, the importance of which cam
scarcely be overestimated. One of the most far-reaching of these
in its later application is Louis Agassiz’s discovery of the analogy
between embryological phases of recent fishes and the geological
succession of the class, which led him to a well defined conception
of what is commonly called the “biogenetic law’: The history:
of the indwidual is but the epitomized listory of the race. In thus
introducing the element of succession in time, Agassiz laid the
basis for all more recent embryological work.

Another notable achievement arising from Agassiz’s study of
fossil fishes was the recognition of so-called “embryonic,” “pro-
phetic”’ or “‘synthetic” types, or such as combine in their structure
peculiarities which afterwards became distributed amongst dif-
ferent distinct types, and are never again recombined. -Differ-
ences in the organization of fossil fishes led Agassiz to discrim-
inate between “lower” and “higher’’ forms, identical with the
generalized and more highly specialized types of modern zoolo-
gists. In the same way, Agassiz’s “embryonic types,” which he
held to “represent in their whole organization early stages of the
growth of higher representatives of the same type,” are in many
cases the ancestral types of the modern evolutionist.

A single illustration must suffice to show the application of
these important generalizations derived from the study of fossil
fishes. Agassiz, in the initial volume of his famous Poissons
Fossiles, remarks more than once upon the fact that all fishes
antedating the Lias have the extremity of the vertebral column
deflected upward into a more or less prolonged caudal lobe, a
condition technically described as heterocercal. Subsequently he
observed that modern fishes exhibit a similar condition in their
early stages, though it was left for the younger Agassiz to demon-
strate that they faithfully reproduce ancestral characteristics.
Adverting to this matter in his well-known “Essay on Classifica-
tion,’ Professor Agassiz remarks: “In my researches upon fossil
fishes, I have pointed out at length the embryonic character of
the oldest fishes, but much remains to be done in that direction.
The only fact of importance I have learned of late is that the

36 ANNUAL REPORT OF

young Lepidosteus, long after it has been hatched, exhibits in the
form of its tail, characters thus far only known among the fossil
fishes of the Devonian system.” ?

Still more suggestive was the same author’s comment upon the
remarkable resemblance between the human fcetus in an early
embryonic stage and those of the shark and skate; the similarity
being so obvious that it may properly be claimed for higher ani-
mals, including man, that they pass thrqugh a “fish-stage,” in
which even gills and a rudimentary tail are present during the
course of their early development.

It is hoped that the above general observations ami serve to
help the reader to a more or less definite idea concerning the scope
and aims of paleontology, and the important influence exerted
by it upon other lines of inquiry. Coming now more par-
ticularly to the question of fossil fishes, it remains to sketch
in outline the general history of this class of vertebrates so far
as it is revealed to us by the paleontological record, and finally to
discuss the relations of those fishes occurring in the Triassic rocks
of New Jersey to others that have preceded and followed them
during the course of geological time. First of all, it is necessary
to fix in our minds the chief divisions of the geological time
scale, in order that the chronological succession of fossil forms
may be kept clearly in view, and that we may form a more ade-
quate appreciation of the time-interval between the Triassic fishes
of New Jersey, and the Palzeozoic, let us say, of adjoining States.

Geological Time Scale-—Most persons are probably aware that
geologists divide the fossiliferous rocks into three principal series,
known respectively as Primary, Secondary and Tertiary, or more
familiarly as Paleozoic, Mesozoic and Cenozoic—these latter
terms signifying “Ancient Life,” “Medizval Life’ and “Recent
Life.’ The term Archean or Archeozoic is applied to primitive
rocks of great thickness underlying the lowermost Palzeozoic,
none of which exhibit satisfactory evidence of organic life; if
they formerly contained fossils, these have become entirely oblit-
erated by metamorphic processes. The principal time-relations,
“eras” or “ages,” as they are called, are subdivided into various

1 Contributions to the Natural History of the United States of America, vol.
TS GSS 7) paps ELS:

THE STATE GEOLOGIST. 37

“systems” which are accepted everywhere as standard units of
chronology ; and the systems are further subdivided into “periods”
and “‘epochs.”’ It is important to observe the distinction between
the historical categories expressing time-relations, and the cor--
responding division of the solid rocks into systems, series and
groups. ‘The stratigraphical column, that is to say, the entire
rock series, is divided by means of unconformity and character
of the fossils into “‘systems,”’ as already observed, and these are
in turn divided into series, groups and formations. ‘The corre-
spondence between this dual historical and stratigraphical class-
ification is exhibited by the following schedule:

|

TIME, | ROCKS. |
| |

Eras | \

} |

manne | Systems

| Periods | Series

| Epochs _ Groups

| |

For convenience of reference we may also be permitted to insert
here a table showing the principal subdivisions of the strati-
graphical column:

38 ANNUAL REPORT OF

ERAS | SYSTEMS PERIODS LIFE
| Quaternary | Pleistocene Man
|
|
l
| | Pliocene
| Miocene Mammals the dominant class
Cenozoic | Tertiary | Oligocene
| | Eocene |
| |
| Cretaceous | | Reptiles dominant
Mesozoic | Jurassic | | Birds appear
|silsriassic | Earliest mammals
Permian | |
| ( Upper Amphibians the dominant
Carboniferous |) Lower | class
| | Upper
Paleozoic | Devonian '~ Middle Fishes dominant
Lower
Silurian Invertebrates still dominant
Ordovician | Fishes appear
Cambrian | All classes of invertebrates
|
Algonkian Huronian Indistinct evidence of life

Archeozoic

Archean Laurentian No evidence of life

Introduction and Succession of the Class of Fishes—We may
now proceed to take a brief survey of the introduction and prog-
ress of the class of fishes, as revealed to us by paleontological evi-
dence, after which we shall be better prepared to understand the
relations born by our local fossils to the group as a whole. It
requires but a limited exercise of the imagination to picture to
ourselves a world essentially like the one we inhabit to-day, but
warmer, and tenanted only by lower groups of organisms; the
land mostly in the form of scattered islands, destitute of grasses,
deciduous trees and flowering plants, untrodden by any verte-
brate creature; the sea without aquatic mammals, reptiles, fishes ;

THE STATE GEOLOGIST. 25

and the highest types of animal life consisting of forms related
to the scorpion and king-crab. ‘‘Monsters in those days’ there
were none; life, such as it was, existed in profusion, but was of
decidedly inferior organization, sluggish or sessile, mostly of
small size, and rather uniformly distributed. But already, at as
far distant a period as the oldest fossiliferous horizon, differentia-
tion had been taking place, and all the great divisions of inverte-
brates had become definitely established. Finally it came to pass,
in some manner and at some epoch—how and when we know not
for certain—that the earliest chordate animals were introduced ;
that is to say, animals ancestral to modern vertebrates, probably
cartilaginous and with only dermal folds for limbs, but craniate,
and having an axial skeleton.

Some have imagined that the transition from invertebrates to
chordates occurred through annelid worms, others through
jointed animals (Arthropods), but here at least is a great gap as
yet unfilled. All that we can affirm is that the Cambrian system
has yielded hitherto no trace of forms which one may regard as
standing in ancestral relations to chordates, and it is not until the
Ordovician (or Lower Silurian) that we first meet with such
creatures in the reality. ‘These primitive, weird-looking organ-
isms differ from fishes proper, and likewise from all other verte-
brates, in the absence of paired limbs and of a lower jaw, as well
as in the microscopical structure of their hard parts. Under the
name of Ostracophores (literally “shell-bearing’’), Professor
Cope has placed them in a distinct class (A gnatha), thus sharply
separating them from fishes proper. Nevertheless they approach
in other respects very closely to fishes, and when we remember
that the great group of Elasmobranchs (sharks and rays) has
equally remote an origin, it will be clear that the history of verte-
brate life on our globe extends over incredibly long periods of
time.

One of the best known of these primitive vertebrates is that
curious form to which Agassiz has given the name of Pterichthys,
familiar to all readers of Hugh Miller’s fascinating works. The
first impression produced by these bizarre creatures upon the
mind of their discoverer has been graphically described both by
Miller and Agassiz. Says the latter: ‘This remarkable animal

40 ANNUAL REPORT OF

has less resemblance than any other fossil of the Old Red Sand-~
stone to anything that now exists. When first brought to view
by the single blow of a hammer, there appeared on a ground of
light-colored limestone [1. e., sandstone], the effigy of a creature,
fashioned apparently out of jet, with a body covered with plates,
two powerful-looking arms articulated at the shoulders, a head
as entirely lost in the trunk as that of the ray (or skate), and a
long angular tail, equal in length to a third of the entire figure.” *

Elsewhere when commenting on the singular fish fauna of the
Old Red Sandstone he remarks: “I can never forget the impres-
sion produced upon me by the sight of these creatures, furnished
with appendages resembling wings, yet belonging, as I had satis-
fied myself, to the class of fishes. * * ™* It is impossible to see
aught more bizarre in all creation than the genus Pterichthys ; the
same astonishment felt by Cuvier in examining Plesiosaurs, |
myself experienced when Mr. H. Miller, the first discoverer of
these fossils, showed me the specimens which he collected in the
Old Red Sandstone of Cromarty.” -

The genus Pterichthys (Fig. 1) is not represented in the rocks
of this country, although a closely related form, Bothriolepis,

Fig. 1.

Pterichthys testudinarius Ag. Lower Old Red Sandstone; Scotland. Lat-
eral aspect, restored by Dr. R. H. Traquair. xX ¥%.

occurs in the Devonian of eastern North America and in Color-
ado. Other most curious and ancient Ostracophores are the
forms known as Cephalaspis (Fig. 2), Pteraspis (Fig. 3) and

1 Introduction to Hugh Miller’s “Footprints of the Creator,” p. xxi. Amer-
ican edition (Boston), 1850.

THE STATE GEOLOGIST. Al

Cephalaspis murchisoni Egert. Silurian and Lower Devonian; Hereford-.
shire. Lateral aspect, restored by Dr. A. S. Woodward. X ¥%.

Pteraspis rosirata Ag. Lower Old Red Sandstone; Great Britain. Side
view of partially restored fish. X 3%.

Tremataspis, together with the remarkable forms described with-
in recent years from the Scottish Silurian, grouped by Dr. Tra-
quair under the name of Anaspida. Of the above mentioned
forms, only the genus Cephalaspis appears to have been common
to both Europe and America.

Another primitive group of organisms found in association
with Ostracophores in the Devonian of various parts of the
world, and by many regarded as more or less akin to them, has
received the name of Arthrodires, in allusion to a curious hinge-
like device by which the body armor is movably united with the
head-shield. Arthrodires are heavily armored fish-like verte-
brates, the head and forward portion of the body being encased
in a system of dermal plates, usually ornamented with fine stellate
tubercles, and with cartilaginous axial skeleton. No indications
have been found of paired fins, properly speaking, but a lower
jaw occurs, suspended freely in the soft parts without being artic-
ulated to the cranium.

The typical genus is Coccosteus (Fig. 4), a comparatively small
form, common to both sides of the Atlantic, and ancestral to the

42 ANNUAL REPORT OF

SEED ce ath
. a Mea
com RK

Fig. 4.

Coccosteus decipiens Ag. Lower Old Red Sandstone; Scotland. Lateral
aspect, restored by Dr. R. H. Traquair. xX ¥%.

hugest of all Paleozoic fishes, Dinichthys and Titanichthys,
which occur in the uppermost Devonian of Ohio and neighboring
States. The length of these creatures has been estimated at
- upwards of fifteen or twenty feet, and the solidity of their armor-
plating has never been surpassed amongst fishes. Over the back
and head the bones were in places fully three inches thick, and
exceedingly dense, though in smaller forms, of course, the arm-
oring was lighter. Equally effective was their dental armature,
Dimchthys having in the upper jaw a pair of beak-like incisors,
behind which were formidable shear-teeth; and in the lower jaw
a large and exceedingly powerful dental plate, likewise provided
with a beak-like projection in front. It is evident that these
creatures could not have been very mobile, owing to their cum-
bersome armor and lateral expanse of body, Titanichthys having
a total width of about six feet; and it is further obvious from
the character of sediments that they frequented the mouths of
shallow estuaries, where they maintained probably a not very
active existence. The characters already enumerated, such as the
peculiar dermal plating, cartilaginous axis, and non-articulation
of the lower jaw with the cranium, separate Arthrodires widely
from modern bony fishes.

Considerable numbers of these armored creatures flourished
throughout the Devonian, but became extinct at the close of that
period without leaving any descendants. It is worth while to
take note, in passing, of these and similar instances of extinction,
which have in times past affected not only species and genera,
but entire groups of organisms, sometimes without any discernible
cause. No doubt in the majority of cases large groups become
crowded out through the incessant and relentless struggle for

THE STATE GEOLOGIST. 43

existence, weaker, less active, and less suitably adapted creatures
giving way before their more successful competitors. It is a
general rule, also, that overspecialized forms, or those whose
habits and organization have responded so as to conform to par-
ticular external conditions, are liable to perish when these condi-
tions change, through inability to readjust themselves in some
other direction. But it would appear, further, that races of ani-
mals have a life-period of their own, comparable to those of in-
dividuals, or the nations of mankind. Just as the history of the
latter resolves itself into periods of early development, dominant
culmination—or “‘A/iithezezt,” as the Germans call it—and final
decadence; so species, genera and larger groups may be said to
pass through various stages of immaturity, maturity and senility.
Amongst old-age characteristics, whether of the individual or
the race, must be reckoned an increased incapacity for variation,
or decay of evolutional vigor; and after a certain point has been
reached, this road leads on to extermination, either sudden or
long-postponed. We shall have occasion to observe presently
that there is a wide difference in longevity amongst various groups
of organisms.

It will aid us to a graphic conception of the processes of evolu-
tion by likening them to a body rotating not always with uniform
velocity in an ascending spiral, and giving off particles which par-
take of its own motion. At irregular intervals the centrifugal
force is great enough to cause the particles to fly off in all direc-
tions, thus giving rise to what is known in paleontology as “ex-
pression points.’”.+ Now these particles, which we may call

*The following definition of expression points is taken from Smith Wood-
ward’s “Outlines of Vertebrate Paleontology” (Introduction, p. xxi.) :

“All known facts appear to suggest that the processes of evolution have not
operated in a gradual and uniform manner, but there has been a certain
amount of rhythm in the course. A dominant old race at the beginning of its
greatest vigor seems to give origin to a new type showing some fundamental
change; this advanced form then seems to be driven from all the areas where
the dominant ancestral race reigns supreme and evolution in the latter becomes
comparatively insignificant. Meanwhile the banished type has acquired great
developmental energy, and finally it spreads over every habitable region, re-
placing the effete race which originally produced it. Another ‘expression
point’ (to use Cope’s apt term) is thus reached, and the phenomenon is re-
peated. The actinoptergian fishes furnish an interesting illustration. The

4A ANNUAL REPORT OF

variants, may be supposed to throw off in turn smaller particles,
corresponding to species, which radiate in the same manner.
Some will be precipitated at tangential extremes, halting finally —
when resistance overcomes their momentum; others will strike
downwards in a retrograde path, and shortly disappear—these
being the so-called degenerate species. And stil others will be
given an impetus in an upward direction, their movement contin-
uing until they too are overcome by resistance. ‘These last are
the progressive species, and it is evident that only amongst this
class can any persist and keep pace with fresh competitors that
are constantly entering the field at higher levels. Certain ones
that persist longer than others thus come to stand out in the
changing complex as archaic types, their antique characters con-
trasting strangely with the remodeled order of things.

The parallelism we have imagined is not exact, but may serve
as a graphic portrayal of the manner of succession and decadence
of species and higher groups. One meets with a closer analogy
in studying the history of languages, or of individual words in
a single or in various languages. Every one knows that certain
primitive roots, especially designations of essential objects and
relations, have survived from early Aryan speech down to mod-
ern times; and innumerable cognate expressions exist side by side
in European tongues derived from the Latin and Greek. Roots
and stems, that is to say, the ground types, persist practically
unchanged throughout all the vicissitudes and changing condi-
tions of human progress. Variations, too, once firmly estab-
lished, and favored by environment, are apt to persist indefinitely.
Not only do words, idioms and figures of speech all illustrate the
principle of evolution, but standards of pronunciation furnish

earliest known member of this order (Cheirolepis) appears as an insignificant
item in the Lower Devonian fauna, where crossopterygian and dipnoan fishes
are dominant. When the latter begin to decline in the Lower Carboniferous,
the suborder to which Cheirolepis belongs (Chondrostei) suddenly appears in
overwhelming variety. By the period of the Upper Permian another funda-
mental advance has taken place—the Protospondyli have arisen; but only a
solitary genus is observed among the hosts of the dominant race. In the Trias
the new type becomes supreme, and at the same time the next higher suborder,
that of the Jsospondyli, begins to appear. This lingers on in the midst of the
dominant Protospondyli during the Jurassic period, and then in the Cretaceous
this and still higher suborders suddenly replace the earlier types and inaugu-
rate a race which has subsequently changed only to an insignificant extent.”

THE STATE GEOLOGIST. 45

excellent examples of the working of the same governing force.
Some of these are sufficiently significant as to be worth noting.

As has been aptly remarked by Professor Lounsbury,’ the
survival of ancient usage explains the existence among the unedu-
cated of many pronunciations which, at a former period, were
regularly employed by the educated. “The language of the illit-
erate is,” this author observes, “to a great extent, archaic. It
retains words and meanings and grammatical constructions which
were once in the best of use, but have ceased to be used by the
best. This is as true of pronunciation as it is of vocabulary and
grammar. In this respect the archaic nature of the speech of the
uneducated manifests itself in practices which would be little ex-
pected to exist. It sometimes affects the place of the accent. In
our tongue it is generally popular usage which is disposed to lay
the stress upon a syllable far from the end of the word. * * *
Yet, curiously enough, this practice, based upon classical author-
ity, lingers sometimes in the mouths of the uncultivated long after
it has been abandoned by the cultivated. Readers of Milton are
well aware that with him blasphemous is invariably pronounced
biasphe'-mous. It was probably the general usage of the educated
men of his time. Now no one pronounces it so save the unlet-
tered. They remain faithful to the classical quantity, and are
treated with contumely for it by such as deem it both their right
and duty to be horrified by hearing dlustrate pronounced
illustrate. Similar observations may be made of contrary and
muschievous.”

It is apt to provoke a smile on hearing familiar words pro-
nounced as if spelled critter, nater, picter, etc., instead of sounding
the final ture, yet these are instances of inherited usage which
two or three centuries ago was common in good society. A Lon-
doner’s pronunciation of the word clerk is another interesting
survival, as is also the custom of replacing the sound of e by a
in words like certain (vulgarly sartin), service, servant, sermon
and serpent. Even Jersey was once pronounced Jarsey, as clergy
was pronounced clargy. ‘The reader will not fail to notice the
close parallel existing between these cases of survival of ancient

* The Standard of Pronounciation in English (New York and London, 1904).

40 ANNUAL REPORT OF

mannerisms and the persistence of archaic types of animal life.
The analogy may be developed a little further.

A tendency is to be noted nowadays toward accommodating
the spoken word to the written, that is to say, there is purposeful
adaptation along definite lines. ‘This tendency is adverted to by
Professor Lounsbury in following wise: “Colloquial or provin-
cial speech will long continue to retain the old pronunciation.
But even in those quarters they tend to die out with the increase
of the habit of reading and the steadily waxing influence of the
schoolmaster. Furthermore, in most, if not in all, of the instances
where anomalies now exist, or once existed, it will be found that
the current pronunciation represents a form of the word which
at some time or at some place prevailed in writing as well as in
sepaking. Illustrations of this are frequent. As good a one as
any is furnished by the name itself of our language. We spell it
English; we pronounce it Ing’ glish; and we pronounce it so be-
cause by many it was once so spelled.” And finally it is to be
_ observed that all language is full of what Trench very happily
calls the “fossil remains of metaphors’”—that is to say, words
which were once used to convey ideas by comparing them to
something known, but the figurative sense of which is now for-
gotten. Examples of this kind will occur to the minds of every
reader.

The object of the digression we have just made has been to
bring the reader directly in contact with some of the fundamental
facts with which paleontology has to deal, and to aid him to an
understanding of them, or of their significance, through analogous
examples. Returning now to our main theme, we may say finally
of the Ostracophores and Arthrodires that they stand for diver-
gent groups which branched off at a remote date from the parent
stock, but failed to maintain their own as against later derivatives
of the same stem. In the end their fate was identical, and, which
is the more surprising, nearly contemporaneous with that of domi-
nant groups of invertebrates during the Paleozoic, such as Trilo-
bites and Eurypterids.

Elasmobranchs.—We have now to consider another very an-
cient, very primitive and very conservative group of fishes, one
which has retained the essential features of its organization prac-

THE STATE GEOLOGIST. 47

tically unchanged from the Silurian down to the present day.
This is the great subclass of cartilaginous fishes, or Elasmo-
branchs (chimeeroids, sharks and rays), by many supposed to be
the ancestral stem from which all modern fishes have been derived,
or at least which may be looked upon as representing most nearly
the persistent ancestral condition of fishes. Amongst the salient
characteristics of Elasmobranchs, by which they may be distin-
guished at once from all modern fishes, are to be noted (1) their
cartilaginous skeleton; (2) shagreen integument; (3) heterocer-
cal (asymmetrical) tail; (4) separate, slit-like gill-openings,
metamerally arranged; (5) clasping organs in the male, and (6)
various internal peculiarities. The skeleton is cartilaginous,
sometimes calcified to a considerable extent, but never ossified,
and never with dermal bones. The sturgeon is one of the few
existing fishes which also has a cartilaginous skeleton and het-
erocercal tail—that is to say, one with a much produced superior
lobe, instead of having the upper and lower lobes about equal;
but it differs in its remaining characters, such as the absence of
shagreen, of slit-like gills, presence of dermal bones, etc. E,ven
a superficial examination of any shark or ray must serve to con-
vince one that the characters enumerated above, taken in their
entirety, are very trenchant, but there are numerous others besides
these. For very full and minute accounts of the structure and
habits of Elasmobranchs, it will be necessary to consult standard
works on ichthyology, such as Dr. Giinther’s “Introduction to the
Study of Fishes,” the volume on Fishes in the “Cambridge Nat-
ural History,” or Bashford Dean’s “Fishes, Living and Fossil.”
The following general remarks, taken from the second of the
works just mentioned, must suffice for the present discussion.
“The Elasmobranchs are for the most part active predaceous
fishes, living at different depths in the sea, from the surface to
nearly a thousand fathoms, and ranging from mid-ocean to the
shallower waters round the coasts in almost every part of the
world. Although typically marine, they sometimes ascend rivers
beyond the reach of tides, and a few are permanent inhabitants
of fresh water. They are most abundant in tropical and sub-
tropical areas, where they also attain their greatest size, and are
numerous in temperate regions, but there are some species which

48 ANNUAL REPORT OF

are typically Arctic. None of them are small, and some of the
sharks are the largest of living fishes. All are carniverous, but so
diversified is their food that in different species it may range from
other fishes of no mean size to mollusks, crustaceans and other
invertebrates, or even to plankton. In their breeding habits the
sharks and dog-fishes present many interesting features. * * *
The majority of the sharks, dog-fishes and rays are viviparous,
that is, the young are born alive; the rest * * * are ovipa-
rous, that is, the young are hatched out after the extrusion of
the eggs.”

Fossil remains of Elasmobranchs in the shape of detached hard
parts, such as teeth, fin-spines and dermal tubercles, are known
from a few Silurian localities, and are therefore amongst the
earliest undoubted indications of vertebrate life. Fragments of
this description become more numerous in the Devonian, and in
the uppermost horizons of the system are found magnificently
preserved skeletons, which exhibit in some instances even the
microscopic structure of muscular tissues.*

Fig. 5.

Cladoselache fyleri Newb. Cleveland Shale (Upper Devonian) ; Ohio. Lat-
eral aspect, anterior dorsal fin-spine omitted. > */x». (From Dean.)

The best known of these primitive sharks is Clawoselache (Fig.
5), from the Cleveland shale of Ohio, an elongated, round-
bodied form attaining a length of about five feet, with two dorsal
fins and a very remarkable caudal extremity. The structure of
the paired fins is extremely interesting in that it enlightens us
as to the probable origin of vertebrate limbs from continuous
dermal folds on either side of the body, just as the dorsal, caudal
and anal fins are presumably derived from a continuous median
fold. The teeth of Cladoselache are in the form of sharply

* Dean, B., Preservation of Muscle-fibres in Sharks of the Cleveland Shale.
Amer. Geol., vol. xxx. (1902), pp. 273-278.

THE STATE GEOLOGIST. 49

pointed cusps adapted for piercing, and the anterior dorsal fin
appears to have been armed with a powerful spine similar to those
described under the name of Ctenacanthus. ‘This Devonian genus,
as has been said, is the most primitive type of Elasmobranch yet
discovered, and is regarded as the ancestral form from which a
host of Carboniferous and most modern sharks are derived. A
curious form intermediate between sharks and rays (Tamuiobatis)
is also known from the Devonian; and if we may assume dental
plates to furnish a reliable clue, chimzeroids (Ptyctodus) were
present throughout this system in astonishing abundance.

During the Carboniferous the group of Elasmobranchs in-
creased prodigiously in point of numbers, size and variety, and
attained a world-wide distribution, but their rapid culmination
which took place at the opening of this era was followed toward
its close by an equally notable decline, approaching almost to the
verge of extinction during the Permian. Some of the Carbonifer-
ous sharks were formidably armed, the largest fin-spines and most
powerful crushing, cutting and piercing teeth known to the science
of ichthyology having been developed during this era.. An inter-
esting generalized shark from the French Coal Measures (Pleura-
canthus) combines within itself such a variety of synthetic char-
acters as to justify the observation that “it is a form of fish which
might with little modification become either a selachian, dipnoan,
or crossopterygian.” The long-lived group to which the Port
Jackson shark (Cestracion) Fig. 6, belongs was exceedingly
plentiful during the Carboniferous, and the number of species very

Fig. 6.

Port Jackson shark, Cestracion philippi (female). Recent; Australia. X */..
(From Dean, after Garman.)

4 GEOL

50 ANNUAL REPORT OF

extensive; but with the close of Palzeozoic time the family became
decadent.1. The group of Elasmobranchs as a whole, however,
began to flourish anew during the Mesozoic, gradually acquiring
fresh evolutional vigor. It cannot be said to show signs of
decadence in modern times, since it is represented in apparently
undiminished numbers in the marine fauna of the present day.
No members of the group have yet been discovered in the New-
ark rocks of New Jersey or New England.

Dipnoans.—The Devonian, which has justly been styled the
“age of fishes,” is remarkable for the introduction of two great
subdivisions of Pisces, known commonly as Dipnoans and
Ganoids, both of which are represented sparsely in the modern
fauna. ‘To the Dipnoans, or Lung-fishes, belong the “Barra-
munda” or Neoceratodus of Queensland, and two other genera,
one of them (Protopterus) inhabiting African, and the other
(Lepidosiren) South American rivers. As indicated by the com-
mon name of Lung-fishes, or Dipneusti, these fishes are remark-
able for having pulmonary respiration, there being a functional
lung (paired in the two last-named genera) in addition to the
regular gills, thus enabling them to live out of water for con-
siderable periods. ‘The action of the lungs in conjunction with
the gills furnishes a suggestion as to the manner in which air-
breathing vertebrates have probably originated from gill-breath-
ing, fish-like progenitors. Indeed, owing to the striking resem-
blances which Dipnoans present to amphibians in their vascular
system and lungs, many have supposed that the former group
was directly ancestral to the latter. The best modern opinion,
however, is inclined to doubt that these resemblances are indica-
tive of direct ancestral relations, regarding them rather as the
outcome of physiological convergence, associated with adaptive
and parallel modifications in structure, and due to the influence
of a similar environment. It appears more probable that both
Lung-fishes and amphibians have been derived from some primi-
tive crossopterygian (ganoid) ancestor, not very divergent from
the Elasmobranch stem, and subsequently became modified in
certain respects along parallel lines.

*Hay, O. P., The Chronological Distribution of the Binenioonenee Trans.
Amer. Phil. Soc., vol. xx. (1901), pp. 63-75.

THE STATE GEOLOGIST. 51

The habits of existing Lung-fishes are interesting. Neocera-
todus lives all the year round in the water, there being no evidence
that it ever becomes dried up in the mud, or passes into a summer
sleep in a cocoon; and its paired fins, moreover, are useless for

‘progression on the land. The following account of the habits of
the remaining genera is taken from the “Cambridge Natural His-

“Protopterus has a wide distribution over the middle portion of the great
African continent, * * * and is usually found in marshes in the vicinity of
rivers. The tail is the principal organ of locomotion, and by its means the fish
is capable of remarkably quick, agile movements. When slowly moving over
the bottom of an aquarium the paired limbs are observed to move to and fro
on opposite sides alternately in somewhat bipedal fashion. The limbs are use-
less for swimming, although it is possible that they may be helpful in creeping
over the bottom, or in balancing, or as tactile organs. Protopterus is said to
breathe by its lungs as well as by its gills, and to rise to the surface at short
intervals to take in fresh air. In the dry seasons the marshes in which Pro-
topterus lives become dried up, and to meet this adverse change in its sur-
roundings the fish estivates, or passes into a summer sleep, until the next
rainy season brings about conditions more favorable to active life. Prepara-
tory to this summer sleep, and before the ground becomes too hard, the fish
makes its way into the mud to a depth of about 18 inches, and there coils itself
up in a flask-like enlargement at the bottom of the burrow. * * * While
encapsuled in its cocoon the fish is surrounded by a soft, slimy mucus, no
doubt for the purpose of keeping the skin moist, and its lungs are the sole
breathing organs, the air passing from the open mouth of the burrow through
the hole in the lid directly to the mouth of the animal. * * * The length
of the summer sleep naturally varies with the duration of the dry season, and
probably it lasts on the average nearly half the year (August to December).
The cocoons, embedded in an outward casing of hardened mud, have often
been brought to Europe, and when placed in water of suitable temperature the
long torpid Protopterus escapes from its prison in a perfectly healthy condi-
tion and resumes its partly branchial and partly pulmonary mode of breath-
ing.”

“Lepidosiren paradoxa, probably the only species of the genus, is confined to
South America. * * * Of sluggish habits, the fish wriggles slowly about
at the bottom of the swamp like an eel, using its hind limbs in an irregular
bipedal fashion as it wends its way through the dense network of subaqueous
plants. * * * Like other living Dipneusti, Lepidosiren rises to the surface
to breathe. The intervals are, however, very variable, and no doubt depend
on the relative purity or impurity of the water. Both expiration and inspira-
tion are said to take place through the mouth. The snout is protruded on the
surface and the creature expires. After being withdrawn for a moment the
head is again projected and inspiration takes place through the partially
opened lips. When the fish finally sinks a few bubbles of surplus air escape
through the gill-clefts. * * * Like its African relative, the fish ceases to
feed on the approach of the dry season and eventually hibernates at the dilated
extremity of a tubular burrow, the entrance to which is plugged by a small

52

ANNUAL REPORT OF

lump of clay perforatéd by several round holes. On the rising of the water at
the next rainy season the Lepidosiren pushes out the plug and soon emerges
from its burrow. The breeding season begins soon after the escape of the

fish.”

Fug: 7,

Dipterus valenciennest Sedgw. and Murch. Lower Old Red Sandstone;
Scotland. Lateral aspect, restored. 34. (From Dean.)

53

TEES LATE IGhOlOGIST.

Pteraspis.
Gly ptoleemus.
Coccosteus.
Cephalaspis.
Fig. 8 (From

Osteolepis. Holoptychius.
DEVONIAN Fisuns.

Lucas: “Animals Before Man in North America”),

Pterichthys.

54 ANNUAL REPORT OF

Concerning the origin of Lung-fishes as a group, it is further
observed in the same work, that “‘it seems reasonable to look for
their ancestors in the early Devonian Crossoptergu with acutely —
lobate fins, or, with greater probability, to some still more primi-
tive Crossopterygian with simple, non-rhizodont teeth, capable by
fusion of giving rise to massive tritoral plates.” Throughout the

‘Paleozoic this group of fishes formed a conspicuous feature of
the vertebrate fauna, and although they appear to have attained
their maximum development and specialization during the Devon-
ian, they did not become entirely insignificant until near the close
of the Trias. ‘Teeth similar to those of the recent Neoceratodus |
are profusely distributed throughout Triassic rocks of the world,
but none have been obtained thus far from the eastern part of the
United States. It has been shown in a highly instructive manner
by Dollo that the oldest known Lung-fishes, such as Dipterus
(Fig. 7) and its associates, are the most archaic, and that
their modern representatives have been derived from them by a
series of retrogressive changes; or, in other words, the latter
have much the same relation to the former as the degenerate stur-
geons and paddle-fishes to their Palzeozoic ancestors, the Pal@on-
iscide. Owing toa fortunate abundance of material it is possible
to select a series of genera, beginning with Dipterus, and termin-
ating with modern forms, which illustrate the evolution of the
group both in structure and in chronological sequence. Some
of the more important structural modifications observable in the
transition from the older to the recent genera are: (1) the grad-
ual union of isolated median fins to form a continuous fin; (2)
the conversion of a heterocercal tail into a symmetrically formed
one; (3) the degeneration of the squamation, the thick, ganoid
scales of the earlier types being replaced by thin, non-ganoid
scales, or the skin becoming almost entirely naked; (4) a reduc-
tion in the number of cranial dermal bones and the loss of their
original ganoid investment; (5) the suppression of the jugular
plates, and (6) a reduction in the size of the opercular bones.

Ganoids.—The final and one of the most important contin-
gent of the Devonian fauna is furnished by Ganoids, or enameled-
scale fishes. ‘These are divided into two orders, the so-called
“fringed-finned” (Crossopterygian) and the “stout-finned” (Ac-

TEE SATE GROLOGISI: 55

tmopterygian), from which the manifold variety of modern
bony fishes has been derived. Both of these orders are repre-
sented in the Devonian, but the former greatly predominate, and
the latter only begin to outstrip them during the Carboniferous.
There is but little reason to doubt that the fringe-finned Ganoids
gave rise to the class of amphibians, which makes its first appear-
ance in the Carboniferous, this class in turn being ancestral to
reptiles, and the latter to birds and mammals. ‘The history of
Crossopterygians is strikingly similar to that of Dipnoans, in that
the majority of forms become extinct before the close of the Meso-
zoic, although in each case a few moribund survivors continue on
to the present day. Only a solitary member of the order occurs in
the Newark series of this State, a large form known as Diplurus,
of which not more than three or four examples have come to light.
A more particular notice of this form will be found in a subse-
quent section of this report.

Our attention may now be claimed by the important order of
Acanthopterygu, which embraces not only large numbers of enam-
eled-scale fishes, but all modern Teleosts, or so-called “bony
fishes.” The earliest and most primitive member of this order
is Cheirolepis, which occurs in the Devonian of North Britain and
Canada; but this is succeeded in the Carboniferous and Permian
by a variety of forms, all exhibiting the same general features, and
commonly grouped in the single family Palzoniscide. There isa
marked resemblance between the members of this family and
modern sturgeons and paddle-fishes; these latter, accordingly, can
hardly be looked upon other than as late survivors of the ancient
stem. Their similarity of structure is most evident in the struc-
ture of their fins, especially the heterocercal tail, and in the pres-
ence of characteristic plates (the so-called infraclavicles) in the
jugular region. As for the degeneration of teeth and scales in
recent forms, these seem to be characters of minor importance.
Hence we may say that primitive sturgeons arose in the Devon-
ian, and aiter giving off more specialized branches during the
Paleozoic and Mesozoic, maintained a conservative existence
down to the present day. Consequently, the longevity of the
sturgeon tribe is no less remarkable than that of Lung-fishes,
fringe-finned ganoids, and cartilaginous fishes like the Port Jack-
son shark.

56 ANNUAL, REPORT OF

Throughout the Devonian and Carboniferous, stout-finned
Ganoids appear to have been represented by but this one group of
primitive sturgeons. During the Permian, however, a typical
“expression point’ was reached, when a new suborder arose
through various modifications of the skeleton. ‘These latter in-
volved atrophy of the upper lobe of the heterocercal tail, special-
ization of the fins, and loss of the infraclavicular plates already
alluded to. Although represented by but a single genus (Acentro-
phorus) in the Upper Permian, the new suborder—known as
Protospondyli—blossomed forth in surprising variety and at-
tained world-wide distribution during the Trias, giving rise at the
same time to a still higher suborder (Isospondyl:). ‘This last con-
tinued on during the Jurassic in the midst of the still dominant
Protospondyli, until finally in the Cretaceous this and still higher
suborders became supreme, practically monopolizing the seas, as
do their descendants at this day.

To recapitulate briefly the history of the sturgeon tribe, we
should bear in mind its introduction in the Devonian, its flourish-
ing condition throughout the later Palzeozoic, its giving rise in the
Permian to a new suborder known as Protospondyli, and its per-
sistence with only minor modifications until modern times. As for
its Permian offshoot, this group acquired great importance during
the Trias, giving forth still higher suborders, and these in turn
leading to modern bony fishes. Inasmuch as the fish-bearing rocks
of New Jersey are of Triassic age, it is not surprising to find the
fauna largely composed of Protospondyli. ‘The occurrence is to
be expected here of sturgeon-like fishes, more highly specialized
than the primitive Pal@ontscide, and less so than the four modern
genera of sturgeons and paddle-fishes; and this expectation is
realized.

General Nature of the Boonton Fish Fauna.—Oi the half
dozen genera represented in the Triassic rocks of New Jersey,
and likewise in New England, the one which is numerically the
most abundant, and at the same time represented by the largest
number of species, is that which has received the name of Sem-
onotus. ‘This form, with its abbreviate heterocercal tail, modified
fin-structure and absence of infraclavicular plates, together with
its ossified arches of the vertebral axis, falls within the definition

THE, STATE, GEOLOGIST. 57

of Protospondylt. The next most important genus, Catopterus,
and the nearly related Dictyopyge, have a less highly modified
organization, and thus approach more closely to the primitive
sturgeons, or Paleoniscide. Acentrophorus, though not occur-
ring in the New Jersey Trias, is present in the Connecticut Valley
region, and belongs with Semionotus amongst the Protospondyl.
Hence, the afore-named genera, under which the majority of local
species are comprised, may all be regarded as more or less prim-
itive sturgeon-like fishes. Of the remaining genera, each of which
is represented by a single species only, Diplurus is a member of
the fringe-finned and Ptycholepis of the stout-finned or division
of Ganoids. The Newark series is totally lacking in remains
of sharks or lung-fishes, a circumstance which may possibly
be associated with sedimentary conditions. These latter will be
considered immediately.

For the benefit of many who may not be specially familiar with
the teachings of palzontology, or who have but slight acquaint-
ance with fossil fishes in general, it may be well to point out very
distinctly that the Boonton fishes differ markedly from ordinary
types of fishes now living. Consequently, the statement which
one hears frequently asserted with more or less positiveness that
this or that fossil specimen is exactly like a modern perch, or
sun-fish, or other familiar form, springs from ignorance and
careless observation. The nearest comparison with modern types
that can be made is, as we have already explained, with the stur-
geon, a comparatively rare form, and notably distinct from our
common fresh-water fishes. One of the most obvious character-
istics of the latter, as everyone knows, is that they have bones.
The very name of “shad” is immediately suggestive of a fish “full
of bones.” ‘That is to say, there is, first of all, a “back-bone,”
or ossified vertebral column, with stout spines above and below;
secondly, there are well-ossified ribs, these being a conspicuous
feature, and lastly, in many forms at least, there are numerous
fine inter-muscular bones. ‘The head also, in modern bony fishes,
is well ossified. But none of the Boonton fossils exhibit these
features, save only in some species the ribs and vertebral arches
(but not the centra or body of the vertebrze) are imperfectly
ossified.

58 ANNUAL REPORT OF

Another very notable difference is that the Boonton fishes do
not have round or cyloidal, over-lapping scales; but instead, these
are rhomboidal, enamel-like and typically united by a peg-and-
socket articulation. And again, we must take due note of the
fact that the tails of the Boonton fish are very unlike those of
modern Teleosts, or “bony fishes,’ the vertebral column project-
ing into the upper caudal lobe and making that lobe longer and
larger than the lower lobe. The unsymmetrical or heterocercal
caudal fin, and the presence of fine ray-lets or “fulcra’”’ along
the borders of all the fins are characters by which the fossil species
may be told at a glance from the vast majority of recent forms.

Reconstruction of Physical Conditions.—An investigation into
the nature of sedimentation over the Triassic area enables us to
reconstruct more or less perfectly in imagination the former
environment of the Boonton fish fauna, and to account with some
plausibility for the sudden extinction and preservation of vast
numbers of creatures.

Both in New Jersey and New England the inference may be
drawn from a variety of evidence, such as geographical surround-
ings, composition of the sediments, presence of ripple-marks,
abundance of land plants and similar indications, that the rocks
of the Newark group were laid down under shallow-water con-
ditions in proximity to the land. In the Connecticut Valley -
region the strata were clearly deposited in a sort of embayment,
bounded on either side by eruptives of the mainland, and it is
even possible to determine the current directions over part of this
area, as has been done by Professor Emerson, of Amherst. As
the tide rose and fell, alternately covering and leaving bare exten-
sive mud-flats, huge reptiles, the like of which no longer exist,
roamed in large numbers up and down the shore, searching their
prey and leaving tell-tale footprints, which have been preserved
from their day to this.

Little else but footprints bears witness to the existence of these
weird creatures, a fact which offers a striking commentary on the
imperfection of the paleontological record. Although for a long
time regarded as imprints made by birds, it is now known that
these are traces of reptiles belonging to the order of Dinosaurs,
whose gait was bipedal. In New Jersey, also, similar tracks have

THE, STATE GEROLOGIST. 59

been found, though less plentifully, and on some slabs may be
seen impressions of rain-drops that fell incredibly long ages ago.
All these facts are of significance for our present purpose, but
there are others more important. We know that deposition of
Triassic sediments over both the areas under consideration was
accompanied by great volcanic activity, and the question at once,
arises whether there may have been any connection between such
phenomena and the sudden mortality of fishes on a large scale.
An affirmative answer appears to us not only legitimate, but
highly plausible.

If one inquires what are the reasons for believing that the
mortality was accomplished suddenly and on an extensive scale,
it may be pointed out that no other explanation can account for
the remarkable abundance of these fish remains in beds of limited
thickness; hence, the destruction must be attributed to some un-
usual cause or causes. Now, amongst the possible causes which
are known to have produced similar results in other instances,
those which proceed from volcanic and seismic disturbances
acquire force by reason of the established contemporaneity of
these agencies. The conditions which we are justified in suppos-
ing to have existed here were not such as involve the partial or
total evaporation of land-locked waters, or irruptions from the
outer sea into sheltered, more or less brackish inlets. Nor does
the copious discharge of fresh water from the mouths of estuaries
offer a likely explanation for so widespread a destruction of
ichthyic life. To assume that these creatures perished from an
outbreak of parasitic diseases would be a wanton hypothesis.
There remains finally the pleausible conjecture of earthquake
shocks and volcanic explosions—the two being closely related—
shocks killing marine life by the violence of the concussion, and
volcanoes either from the heat of the lava, or from the abundance
of ashes and poisonous gases.

It has been repeatedly observed that earthquake shocks have
been followed by the washing ashore of vast quantities of dead
fish. The learned Greek geographer, Strabo,’ for instance, men-

*The account given by Strabo (Geog. vi., 2, 11) of the destruction of fish
life by submarine disturbances in the vicinity of the Lipari Islands, near Sicily,
reads as follows:

60 ANNUAL REPORT OF

tions the remarkable effects of earthquakes in ancient times, and
gives a particular account of the upheaval of an island in the
A‘gean, parallel occurrences being the sudden formation of
Monte Nuovo, near Naples, in 1538, and of a new island near
Santorin, in 1707. All these considerations lend the color of
plausibility to the hypothesis that either seismic or volcanic dis-
turbances, or both together, stand in causal relation to the Boon-
ton fish beds. Nevertheless, the means at our disposal do not
permit us to push the hypothesis further, so as to arrive at a
demonstration of the real cause or causes.

Progress of Paleichthyology.—Before closing this general ac-
count of the Triassic fishes of New Jersey, it may be of interest
to some to take a brief retrospect over the history of that branch
of natural science which is concerned with the investigation of fos-
sil fishes. In so far as this class of organisms was one of the
earliest to attract attention in the fossil state, it may be claimed
that paleichthyology is coéval with the broader field of palzon-
tology in general. The earliest mention of fossil fishes in litera-

“Posidonius says that at a time so recent as to be almost within his recol-
lection, about the summer solstice and at break of day, between Hiera [now
called Volcano] and Euonymus [one of the Lipari, not certainly identified],
the sea was observed to be suddenly raised aloft and to abide some time raised
in a compact mass, and then to subside. Some ventured to approach that part
in their ships; they observed the fish dead and driven by the current, but being
distressed by the heat and foul smell were compelled to turn back. One of
the boats which had approached nearest lost some of her crew, and was
scarcely able to reach Lipari with the rest, and they had fits-like an epileptic
person, at one time fainting and giddy, and at another returning to their
senses; and many days afterwards a mud or clay was observed rising in the
sea, and in many parts the flames issued, and smoke and smoky blazes.”

A chapter in Pliny’s Natural History (ii., 89), which is devoted to islands
that have been uplifted from beneath the sea, contains an altogether similar
account: “Opposite to us, and near to Italy, among the A®olian isles, an
island emerged from the sea; and likewise one near Crete, 2,500 paces in
extent, and with warm springs in it; another made its appearance in the third
year of the 163d Olympiad (B. C. 125) in the Tuscan gulf, burning with a
violent explosion. There is a tradition, too, that a great number of fishes were
floating about the spot, and that those who made use of them for food im-
mediately expired.” :

Other well-known instances of the sudden destruction of fish life in enor-
mous quantities are those following the destruction of disturbances at Vera
Cruz in 1742, and at Sumatra in 1755. The recent history of tile-fishes off the
coast of Massachusetts is also extremely suggestive.

THE STATE GEOLOGIST. 6a

ture is attributed to Xenophanes of Colophon, who flourished to-
wards the end of the sixth century of the pagan era, and was
founder of the Eleatic school of philosophy. Only a few frag-
ments of his writings have come down to us, but he is reported
by later authors to have commented upon the remains of fishes
and other animals in the fossil state, their occurrence having been
explained by him in a most sagacious manner. He not only in-
ferred from them the former transgression of the sea over the
land, but also the possibility of future submergence, with accom-
panying extinction of all forms of terrestrial life.

Xanthus and Herodotus, of the fifth century B. C., enter-
tained similar opinions concerning the nature of fossils, and it is
evident from the writings of numerous Greek and Roman au-
thors, both prior to and after the beginning of the Christian era,
that petrified remains attracted considerable attention. The Em-
peror Augustus even possessed a collection of fossil bones. At
a later period, however, the views of Aristotle, especially those
relating to spontaneous generation, exerted a baneful influence
upon the interpretation of nature, it being assumed that living
creatures could spring into existence and acquire of themselves
almost any conceivable shape; and if this were possible for living
creatures, so also might it be possible for mineral matter to as-
sume endless variety of form. In consequence, fossils were for
a long time regarded as fortuitous aggregations which had been
formed within the rocks, or had become moulded on the spot
through occult agencies, or through the medium of a vis plastica.
A rival theory that fossils were the remains of bodies which had
been overwhelmed by the Scriptural deluge, afterwards becoming
preserved in the rocks, also engrafted itself firmly upon the popu-
lar imagination.

Leonardo da Vinci, one of the most original and versatile gen-
iuses the world has seen, and Girolamo Fracastoro, his younger
contemporary and fellow-countryman, were among the first to
ridicule the prevailing misconceptions of their time (early part of
the sixteenth century), and to point out the true nature of fossils
in convincing manner. Those interested in the development of
geological and palzontological science during the formative per-
iod of their history will find excellent accounts in Sir Charles

62 ANNUAL REPORT OF

Lyell’s “Principles of Geology,’ in von Zittel’s “History of
Geology and Paleontology,’ in Andrew Dickson White's “His-
tory of the Conflict of Science with Theology,” in Huxley’s ‘“E's-
say on the Progress of Palzontology,’ and numerous similar
works.

As an example of the persistence with which the minds even
of learned men lent themselves to absurd and impossible theories,
instead of heeding the sagacious explanations of Fracastoro and
others, we may point to one of the early occasions when a scientific
body was addressed on the subject of fossil fishes. An instance
is furnished by J. P. Maraldi’s communication to the French
Academy on Veronese fossils, an abstract of which is published —
in the proceedings of that society for the year 1703.1 Some
general comments on the appearance of Bolca fishes, and others
from Sicily and Pheenicia, are followed by suggestions concern-
ing their origin, which at the present day seem most curious.2

Fossil fishes from the Monte Bolca locality, near Verona, also
furnish the subject for an address before the Royal Irish Acad-
emy® towards the close of the eighteenth century, this being the
earliest paper in English devoted to this class of remains. The
discovery of fossil elephant remains in various parts of Europe
and America gave rise to animated discussions of gigantology;

* Hist. de I’ Acad. Roy. des Sciences, année 1703, pp. 22-24. Paris, 1720.
Consult also G. Astruc’s “Histoire naturelle de la Province de Languedoc,”
chapt x Raniss 1757:

* The passage may be quoted as follows: “Qui peut avoir porté ces poissons
et ces coquillages dans les terres, et jusques sur le haut des montagnes? I]
est vraisemblable qu’ il y a des poissons souterrains comme des eaux souter-
rains, et ces eaux, * * * sg’ élevent en vapeurs, emportent peut-étre avec
elles des ceufs et des semences trés-légéres, aprés quoi lorsqu’ elles se con-
densent et se remettent en eau, ces ceufs y peuvent éclorre, et devenir poissons
ou coquillages. Que si ces courants d’ eaux déja élevés beaucoup au-dessus
du niveau de la mer viennent * * * enfin a abandonner de quelque maniére
que ce soit les animaux qui s’ y nourissoient, ils demeureront a sec, et envel-
oppés dans les terres, qui en se pétrifiant les pétrifieront aussi. Ces eaux
elles-mémes peuvent se pétrifier aprés avoir passé par de certaines terres, et
s’ étre chargé de certains sels. Si toutes les pierres ont été liquides, comme
le croyent d’ habiles physiciens, cette espéce de systéme en est plus recevable.”

* Graydon, G., On the Fish Enclosed in Stone of Monte Bolca. Trans. R.
Trish Acad., vol. v: (1704), p. 281:

THE, STATE CHOLOCIST 63

these bones being regarded by many as remains of human giants,
the most famous specimen passing for the actual skeleton of
Teutobochus rex. But it would prove altogether too lengthy a
task for the limits of the present article to sketch even rapidly the
history of this branch of natural science since the time of Linné
and Artedi, the two great Swedish naturalists with whom the
scientific study of fishes properly begins. It is to be noted, how-
ever, that very few contributions can be claimed to have mater-
ially advanced the science of paleichthyology prior to the time
of Louis Agassiz, whose well known “Poissons Fossiles”’ con-
stitues even to this day the most valuable repository of informa-
tion we have on the whole subject.

In Agassiz’s monograph are enumerated more than one thou-
sand species of fossil fishes, the greater part of which are carefully
described and excellently illustrated. The publication of this
work marked an epoch, not only in paleontology, but generai
zoology as well, since one of its most brilliant results was the
discovery of certain fundamental laws, a knowledge of which has
aided wonderfully in strengthening the doctrine of evolution.
Without doubt the most far-reaching of these in its consequences
is the analogy which he pointed out between the embryonic phases
of recent fishes and the geological succession of the class ;.whence
followed the generalization, “The history of the individual is but
the epitomized history of the race.”’” Another notable result was
the recognition of his so-called prophetic or synthetic types, or
such as embrace features in their organization which afterwards
become distributed amongst various groups, never again to be
recombined. Yet more fruitful was Agassiz’s insistence that the
comparative anatomy of a group, including its palzontological
record, should be studied in connection with the comparative
embryology of the same; since, as he maintained, “‘the results of
these two methods of inquiry complete and control each other.”

Since the time of Louis Agassiz the scientific investigation of
fossil fishes has made steady and most satisfactory progress. The
ichthyic faunas of different horizons and localities are known
in many cases almost as well as those of modern regions, and
details of structure have been worked out in the most minute
and painstaking manner. Our knowledge of the history of this

64 ANNUAL REPORT OF

class of vertebrates has been vastly extended, and lines of descent
have become revealed which afford new and precious insight
concerning the inter-relations of different groups. If it was pos-
sible for Agassiz to reconstruct accurately the entire skeleton of a
fish from a single scale, it is possible for us now to treat whole
faunas in much the same way, since we are able to trace their
origin, migrations and genetic relations—in many cases at least—
and on bringing all these facts together, to observe the progress
of evolution taking place, as it were, before our eyes.
Contributions to our Knowledge of American Triassic Fishes.
—We must now turn from this imperfect survey of the scope and
progress of the science to an equally rapid consideration of the
work that has been done on American ‘Triassic fishes. As early
as the first decades of the preceding century the pioneers of
American geology became interested in the fossil fishes and
reptilian foot-prints of the Connecticut Valley sandstone, several
communications in regard to them having been furnished by
Hitchcock,’ Silliman,? Mitchell? and Dekay.* They were also
brought at an early date to the attention of scientists abroad,
Brongniart, Agassiz, Lyell and Egerton having successively com-
mented upon them during the first half of the century. But it
is to the Redfields, father and son, who wrote between 1837

* Hitchcock, E., Discovery of Fossil Fish. Amer. Journ. Sci., vol. iii. (1821),
pp. 305-366. IJbid., vol. vi. (1823), p. 43. Final Report on the Geology of
Massachusetts, vol. ii. (1841), pp. 458-525.

* Silliman, B., Miscellaneous Observations, etc. Amer. Journ. Sci., vol. iii.
(1821), pp. 216, 365.

* Mitchell, S. L., Observations on the Geology of North America. 1818.

*Dekay, J. E., Fossil Fishes, in “Zodlogy of New York, or the New York
Fauna” (Part iv., Fishes, pp. 385-387). Albany, 1842. Also an unpublished
paper read before the Lyceum of Natural History of New York, noticed by
J. H. Redfield in the Annals of the Lyceum, vol. iv., 1848.

The titles of these papers, with a single exception, are given by Dr. (Oe 12
Hay in his Bibliography and Catalogue of the Fossil Vertebrata of North
America, published in Bulletin No. 179 of the United States Geological Sur-
vey (1902). The exceptional paper is the posthumous report of John H. Red-
field, published in part by Professor Newberry in his Monograph on the Fossil
Fishes and Fossil Plants of the Triassic Rocks of New Jersey and the Con-
necticut Valley (1888). American vertebrate paleontology properly begins
with the description in 1787, by President Thomas Jefferson, of mastodon re-
mains from Virginia, followed a few years later by descriptions of the bones
of Megalonyx, a gigantic sloth.

THE STATE GEOLOGIST. 65

and 1857, that we are indebted for the first really satisfactory
and detailed account of the Triassic fish-fauna of this country,
these two having described nearly all the important species. Their
results are embodied in ten contributions, eight by William C.
Redfield, the elder, and two by John R., the younger; and they
also brought together a valuable collection, which unfortunately
has not been preserved in its entirety.

Some detached notices in regard to Triassic fishes appear also
in the writings of Ebenezer Emmons,’ accompanied by a few
figures, but it was reserved for Professor John Strong New-
berry to prepare the most elaborate and, on the whole, most
satisfactory account of this fauna which we possess. His Mono-
graph, which includes not only fossil fishes, but also fossil plants —
of the eastern United States, embodies a vast deal of painstaking
and conscientious labor, carried on during the latter part of an
active career. Since Newberry’s time but little has been added
to our knowledge of American Triassic fishes. An important
memoir on the genus Semionotus, by Dr. E. Schellwien,? of
Konigsberg, appeared in 1901, in which some details and illus-
trations are given of two previously known species. Dr. George
F. Eaton,’ of Yale University, has also furnished brief accounts
of several familiar forms, but pointing out a number of anatom-
ical characters which had been previously overlooked. A sup-
posed new species of Semionotus was described by the able
collector, S. W. Loper,* in 1893, under the name of “Jschypterus
newberryi1,’ and another doubtful species, which received the
name of “IJschypterus beardmorei,’ was illustrated some years
later in a popular magazine by Mr. J. H. Smith,? formerly of the
Montclair High School. More recently a detached dermal spine

*Emmons, E., Geological Report of the Midland Counties of North Caro-
lina, 1856.—Report of the North Carolina Geological Survey. Agriculture of
the Eastern Counties, together with Descriptions of the Fossils of the marl
beds. Raleigh, 1858—Manual of Geology, second edition. New York, 1860.

* Schellwien, E., Ueber Semionotus Ag. Schriften der Phys.-Oekonom.
Gesellsch. zu K6nigsberg i. Pr. (1901), p. 34, pl. i-iii.

* Eaton, G. F., Notes on the Collection of Triassic Fishes at Yale. Amer.
Journ. Sci., ser. 4, vol. xv. (1903), pp. 259-268, pl. v., vi.

*Loper, S. W., On a new Fossil Fish. Popular Science News (1893).

- *Smith, J. H., Fish Four Million Years Old. Metropolitan Magazine, vol.
xii. (1900), pp. 498-506.
5 GEOL

66° ANNUAL REPORT (OF STATE, CEOLOGIsm

from the Lower Trias of Idaho, apparently belonging to Astera-
canthus, has been described by H. M. Evans! as a new species of
Cosmacanthus. ‘This last-named species is the only ichthyodoru-
lite yet recorded from the American Trias, and the total absence
of Elasmobranch remains in the eastern area may be regarded,
so far as the evidence goes, as strenghtening our belief that these
sediments were deposited under brackish water conditions. .

One other western locality furnishing fossil fishes of sup-
posed ‘T'riassic age is worthy of brief mention in this connection.
During the years 1879 and 1882 a small collection of ichthyic
remains was obtained by Dr. C. D. Walcott, Director of the
United States Geological Survey, in the Kanab Valley, Utah,
and adjoining regions in Arizona. ‘These remains, which have
recently been placed in the hands of the writer for investigation,
are extremely fragmentary, and do not premit of accurate specific
determinations. Of the few genera which are tolerably well
indicated, such as Pholidophorus and several Lepidotus-like
forms, it cannot be said that they evince anything in common
with the Triassic fauna of the eastern States. Some resemblance
is to be noted between the Kanab fish-fauna and that of Perledo,
near Lake Como, but the general aspect of the material collected
by Walcott is much more suggestive of Jurassic than of Triassic
relations. This might very well happen notwithstanding the
horizon be definitely proved by stratigraphic and other evidence
to be of Triassic age, as other instances of pioneer faunas and
overlapping types are not uncommon. It does not appear, however,
that the data thus far obtained warrants more than a plausible
supposition that the Kanab beds are of Triassic age, their reddish
color and relative position being consistent with what we should
expect of rocks of that horizon. Accepting the evidence furnished
by the fossil fishes at its full value, we shall have to regard the red
beds of Kanab Cafion as belonging presumably to the Lias.

* Evans, H. M., A. New Cestraciont Spine from the Lower Triass'c of Idaho
Bull. Dept. Geol. Univ. of California, vol. iii. (1904), pp. 397-402, pl. xlvii.

The Triassic Fishes of New Jersey.

BY C. R. EASTMAN, HARVARD UNIVERSITY.

SUMMARY.

PAGE.
I. Preliminary considerations.

1. General constitution of the Triassic fish-fauna of New Jersey,
2. Physical condition of the remains, and inferences as to probable

EAUSESEO le CeSihUCtON sw ee eet aL e Sa: paar 68
3. Relations of the fauna to those of other regions, ...... 70
4. Evidence in regard to homotaxial relations of the Newark
CERES AST are Opa bis 6 GUE An Aid ae aInOn Bieter tai art hiN hae ee MALE 71
5. Reference of the Newark series by leading authorities to the
WIpMeRMOsty MElas Megan, wes mbt ans romanian acetals sets cies utes 71
6. Table showing correspondence between the Newark fish fauna
auduthatuor the Alpine Miuschelkalkws 050 eed c Ua ot, 72

II. Systematic descriptions.

ACTINOPTERYGIT.
Tt. Family Semionotide.
CERO SOLLOROHIS Soc oc eo ORO BCU O OBE 0 0 On Gro ORIaE Maso uuie ne 73
Genus AACEntmopHwornwsmesicc ass ee soca tie SLY Baa en MEAN 94
2. Family Catopteride.
(Gein i COAL ATT AIO» 6 DORA OIE DISA O OS ETS I IE RISER aU AEN 95
Ceri IDEM OUWEOS GES SB COS ON UO Ab BOCES RO SO ES lata: 99
3. Family Eugnathide.
Gems Ey GHOLC DUS ae cameras He Mi cieic ors rer ei ne rete aaANS res ’, 100
CROSSOPTERYGII.

1. Family Celacanthide.
(CEES AD LAHIS: Meee CCAS OTS ROTORS OO ae Ease Seca meen a Ama 101

PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS.

The character of the Triassic fish-fauna of the eastern United
States from Virginia northward is singularly homogeneous and
monotonous. All told, there are only half a dozen genera repre-

(67)

68 ANNUAL, REPORT OF

sented, four of which are known by a solitary species each. Of
the remaining genera, Catopterus and Semionotus, the latter 1s
numerically the more important, and is also represented by a
larger number of species.

It is often difficult to distinguish the species of Semionotus
trom one another, except in the case of well preserved individuals,
but the genera can always be separated with ease. The serration
of the posterior scale-borders in Catopterus, and delicately
fringed condition of the anterior ray of all the fins, are characters
by which any member of this genus can be recognized at a
glance. The fringed appearance of the fins just mentioned 1s
due to the presence of numerous spine-like splints or raylets
known as fulcra, which are peculiar to ganoid fishes—or those
baving rhomboidal, enameled scales. According to the familiar
dictum of Johannes Muller, “every fish with fulcra on the an-
terior edges of one or more of its fins is a ganoid.” The group
of fishes embraced in this category was vastly more important
during remote geological periods than in later times, and at
the present day it is on the verge of extinction. In fact, not
more than seven genera of the modern fauna can be classed
as ganoids, according to the more precise definition of this series,
the most familiar of these being the sturgeon (Acipenser), gar-
pike (Lepidosteus), and bow-fin (Ama). Recent ganoids, with
the exception of the sturgeon, have acquired a fresh-water
habitat, whereas their predecessors were chiefly marine.

It is probable that the Triassic fishes we are about to con-
sider belonged to a more or less brackish-water fauna, as there
is abundant evidence to show that the shallow-water sediments
of the Connecticut Valley Trias, and of the Newark series in
New Jersey, were deposited under estuarine, or off-shore condi-
tions. It need scarcely be remarked that of this exclusively ganoid
fauna, all the genera are now extinct. One of them, Diplurus,
belongs to the Crossopterygian or fringe-finned ganoids, of which
there are but two living representatives—Polypterus and Cala-
moichthys. ‘The remaining five belong to the group of Actinop-
terygian fishes, and one of the number, Catopterus, is interest-
ing in that it stands close to the ancestral line of the sturgeons,
which originated as far back as the Devonian.

THE SATE CRhOLOCIST. 69

As to the probable causes which brought about the destruc-
tion of the immense quantity of fish-life as is found in the Boon-
ton and other localities, these can only be postulated in a general
way, and have already been referred to in the preceding pages.
It is evident that a vast number of creatures met their death sud-
denly, sank to the bottom and became embedded in sediment
before their bodies had suffered serious injury, either from decom-
position or mechanical disruption. Accidental lengthening or
compression of the body, due to wave or current action, and such
other deformation as occurred prior to the fossilization process,
was no doubt accomplished quickly. It is even possible, in some
cases, to determine the direction of current or wave action, since,
if two individuals are found lying at right angles to each other
on the same slab (as in Plate XIV), and one of them is vertically
and the other longitudinally compressed, it is evident that such
distortion must have been produced by a force operating in
one and the same direction. Friction of the water on the bot-
tom, and the wash of sediment by tidal action, offer convenient
and plausible explanations of these appearances. ‘The extent to
which the original contour of fish skeletons has become distorted
by accidents of fossilization, which seem to have been unusually
prevalent at Boonton, cannot be fully appreciated except by those
who have had considerable experience in collecting, or in the de-
termination of species.

A variety of accidental phenomena has been suggested to
account for the destruction of multitudes of brackish-water or
marine organisms simultaneously in such manner as to produce
what are known as “bone-beds” or ‘“‘fish-beds.”’ Amongst the
more important of these may be mentioned: (1) Earthquake
shocks; (2) volcanic explosions, with the emission of poisonous
vapors; (3) sudden changes in temperature, or in salinity
brought about by the shifting of currents, by irruptions from
the outer sea into sheltered or brackish-water inlets, or by unusu-
ally copious discharges of fresh water into the open sea; (4)
the accidental impounding of marine forms within land-locked
embayments, including coral island lagoons, coal marshes, inun-
dated areas, etc.; and (5) parasitic infections and other physio-
logical disturbances. ‘The possibility of some of these agencies

70 ANNUAL REPORT OF

having led to the mortality of Eocene fishes found at Monte
Bolcac in the Veronese was discussed by prominent Italian geol-
ogists more than a century ago."

As to the correspondence between the Triassic fauna of eastern
North America with organic assemblages of other regions, it
must be admitted that the fishes alone furnish insufficient data
for correlation. ‘The vertebrate contingent of the Newark fauna
is essentiaily a local one, and does not stand in close agreement
with the corresponding element of the European or South African
Mesozoic. On the other hand, we must not overlook the fact that
a certain and not inconspicuous analogy exists between the New-
ark fish-fauna and that of the Alpine Trias, especially the Vir-
glorian (Muschelkalk) of Perledo, near Lake Como, which con-
tains a number of species of Semionotus closely resembling the
American forms. In the Keuper of Besano both Semionotus and
Ptycholepis occur, along with other forms having a Liassic aspect,
and the association of these two genera in our local fauna immedi-
ately suggests that the Newark beds belong to the uppermost divi-
sion of the Trias.

This conclusion with respect to the relations of the Newark sys-
tem agrees with that shared by most palzeobotanists who have
investigated its flora, and whose opinions are brought together
by I. C. Russell in his correlation paper on the Newark system.?
The testimony furnished by paleeobotany on this subject is held
by most writers to be definite and reliable. According to L. F.
Ward,’ the most recent authority to discuss the relations of the
Newark flora, the evidence of fossil plants fixes the horizon of the
Newark “with almost absolute certainty at the summit of the
Triassic system, and narrows the discussion down chiefly to the
verbal question whether it shall be called Rhetic or Keuper.

*Gazola, G., Lettere recentemente pubblicate sui. pesci fossili veronesi, con
annotazioni inediti agli estratti delle medesime. Milan, 1793, and Verona, 1794.

* Russell, I. C., Correlation Papers: The Newark System (Bull. U. S.
Geol. Surv. No..85, pp..126-131), 1892. Kimmel, H. B., The Newark System
of New Jersey (Ann. Rept. State Geol. N. J. for 18097, pp. 23-159), 1808.

*Ward, L. F., The Plant-bearing Deposits of the American Trias (Bull.
Geol. Soc. America, vol. ili, pp. 23-31), 1891. Principles and Methods of
Geologic Correlation by means of Fossil Plants (Amer. Geol., vol. ix,. pp.
34-47), 189I. ‘

THE STATE GEOLOGIST. 71

* * * The beds that seem to be most nearly identical, so far
as the plants are concerned, are those of Lunz, in Austria, and of
Neue Welt, in Switzerland. These have been placed by the best
European geologists in the Upper Keuper. Our American Trias
[Newark] can scarcely be lower than this, and it probably can
not be higher than the Rheetic beds of Bavaria.”

Newberry was mistaken in supposing that the fishes of the
Newark system were not nearly related to those of any European
formation,’ but agreed with the majority of writers in the view
that the evidence of fossil plants favored a correlation with the
Uppermost Trias. Agassiz? at one time expressed an opinion
that the fossil fishes of the Virginia area, and “from the so-called
New Red Sandsorie, indicate an age intermediate between the
European New Red and the Oolite.” Later he developed this
view so far as to state that the fossils referred to correspond
neither with the Triassic fishes of Southern Germany, nor with
those from the English Lias, and he accordingly referred the New-
ark rocks to a group intermediate between the Trias and Lias,
for which there is no European equivalent.®

Those desirous of tracing the correspondence between the New-
ark fish-fauna and various assemblages of the Alpine Trias may
profitably consult the comparative lists given by Baron de Zigno
of the species obtained from five well-known localities. In the
following table we have arranged his list of the forms occurring
at Perledo and that showing the principal American species in
parallel columns. For a list of the localities from which fossil
fishes have been obtained in greater or less abundance in the New-
ark system one may consult page 57 of the correlation paper of
I. C. Russell, already referred to.. A discussion will also be found:
in the same paper of the probable physical conditions under which
the beds of the Newark system were deposited :

* Newberry, J. S., The fauna and flora of the Trias of New Jersey and the
Connecticut Valley (Trans. N. Y. Acad. Sci., vol. vi, pp. 124-128), 1887.

? Agassiz, L., Proc. Amer. Assoc. Adv. Sci., vol. iv (1850), p. 276.
*Idem, Proc. Amer. Acad., vol. iii (1852-57), p. 60.

72 ANNUAL REPORT OF

List of Fossil Fishes occurring in the | List of Fossil Fishes occurring in the
Alpine Muschelkalk at Perledo. Newark Series.

1. Lepidotus serratus Bell. I. Semionotus ovatus (W. C. Red-

BD s pectoralis Bell. field).

3. Allolepidotus rueppelli (Bell.). Be s robustus (Newb.).

4. ae nothosomoides B. * agassizii (W. C. Red-
Deecke. | field).

5. Semionotus brevis Bell. 4 ff gigas (Newb.).

6. FE balsami Bell. 5 < fultus (Ag.).

7 se imermis Bell. 6. H tenuiceps (Ag.).

8. Ss dubius Bell. Fe g micropterus (Newb.).

9 s altolepis Deecke. 8. Hi lineatus (Newb.).

10. bs bellotti Ruppel. O. rf elegans (Newb.).

Tl et trotti Bell. 10. ie brauni (Newb.).

12. e hermesti Bell. (MS.). | 11. Acentrophorus chicopensis Newb.

13. Fe lepisurus Bell.(MS.). | 12. Catopterus gracilis J. H. Redfield.

14. Archeosemionotus connectens 125 oF redfieldi Egerton.
Deecke. | 14. Dictyopyge macrura (W. C. Red-

15. Pholidophorus rueppelu Bell. field).

16. $ oblongus Bell. 15. Ptycholepis marsht Newb.

1p % lepturus Bell. 16. Diplurus longicaudatus Newb.

18. ne porrot. Bell. |

19. 4 curtoni Bell. |

20. Urolepis macroptera Bell. |

Pit " microlepidotus Bell.

22. e elongata Bell. |

23. Heptanema paradoxum Riuppel. |

24. Belenorhynchus macrocephalus |
Deecke.

Systematic Descriptions.
Order ACTINOPTERYGII!
Family SEMIONOTIDA:.

Trunk more or less deeply fusiform, rarely cycloidal. Cranial
and facial bones more or less robust, and opercular apparatus
complete. Gape of mouth small, teeth styliform or tritoral.
Notochord persistent, vertebree not more than rings. Fin-rays
robust, fulcra large, dorsal fin not extending more than one-half
the length of the trunk. Scales rhombic, except occasionally in
the caudal region.

*For sake of convenience, the two most important genera, Semionotus
and Catopterus, are here treated slightly out of their usual order, the remain-
ing genera, which are of excessively rare occurrence, being placed after them.

DHE Shhh CEOLOGIST: 73
Genus SEMIONOTUS Agassiz.

Trunk fusiform. Marginal teeth slender, conical, somewhat
spaced, inner teeth stouter; opercular apparatus well-developed,
with a narrow arched preoperculum. Ribs ossified. Fulcra un-
usually large. Paired fins small, dorsal fin large, arising at or
behind the middle of the back, and in part opposed to the
relatively small anal; caudal fin slightly forked. Scales smooth
or feebly ornamented, and the narrow overlapped margin pro-
duced at the angles and at the superior border. Flank-scales
not more than twice as deep as broad, the dorsal ridge-series of
acuminate scales forming a prominent crest.—( Woodward. )

The cranial osteology of this genus is imperfectly known, a
consequence of the inferior preservation of most of the remains.
Agassiz, in his great work on Fossil Fishes, described briefly
the arrangement of cranial plates in S. nilssoni, and more recently
FE. Schellwien has furnished us with similar information regard-

Fig. 9.

Semionotus capensis Woodw. Lateral aspect of head, X*/:. br, branchi-
ostegal rays; cl, clavicle; co, circumorbitals; cor, coracoid (?); fr, frontal;
4. op, interoperculum; md, mandible; mx, maxilla; pa, parietal; p. cl, post-
clavicular scale; p.0, postorbital; p. op, preoperculum; p.t, post-temporal;
s. cl, supraclavicle; so, suborbitals; s.op, suboperculum; sq, squamosal; s. t,
supratemporal. Sensory canals are indicated by dotted lines; doubtful sutures
by dashes (after Schellwien).

ing S. capensis (Fig. 9), both of these forms being trans-Atlantic
species. Newberry remarks in his Monograph on Triassic Fishes
that he has “not been able to verify by personal examination

74 ANNUAL REPORT OF

the descriptions of the head plates of Semionotus’ given by
European authors,” but offered on his own part no new infor-
mation as regards the head structure of American forms. Only
within the past year has a really satisfactory figure of the head
of an American species been published, and this, which we owe
to Dr. G. F. Eaton, is unaccompanied by a textual description.
In the following paragraphs it is not intended to present more
than a general sketch of the cranial structure so far as it has
yet been deciphered.

The membrane bones of the cranial roof form a continuous
shield, extending from the snout nearly to the occipital border.
The two principal pairs of bones are the narrow and elongate
frontals, reaching from the premaxillaries to behind the orbits,
and the much shorter parietals in contact with them posteriorly.
As is frequently the case amongst the Semionotidz, these pairs
are not quite bilaterally symmetrical, but the sutures are more
regular than in some other genera. Skirting the lateral border
of the frontals, and extending also over the forward part of
the parietals, are deep mucous canals, which are developed on
the under side of the bones, and hence not commonly apparent
from the external aspect. In S. nilssoni (Fig. 10), the impres-

Semionotus nilssoni Ag. Dorsal aspect of head, slightly modified, after
. Agassi, X*/:. a, frontals; b, parietals; c, squamosal; d, postorbital.

sions of these canals are unusually broad and deep, and so diffi-
cult to distinguish from sutures that Agassiz was misled into
confusing them with the latter. For the benefit of those who
may care to consult Agassiz’s description of the latter head in
this form, and seek acquaintance with a single perfectly preserved
individual before attempting the decipherment of imperfect ones,
we quote from Agassiz’s original description as follows:

THe SlATE ‘CROLOGIST. 75

“Les fronteaux, a,a, sont fort allongés; leur prolongement antérieur ne se
rétrécit pas trés-considérablement; en sorte que la téte est moins effilée dans
cette espéce que dans les autres. La suture qui les unit, est inégale, le frontal
gauche étant plus large que le droit, et faisant saillie sur lui a sa partie
postérieure. Les pariétaux, b,b, sont petits; le droit est cependant un peu
plus grand que le gauche. Le mastoiden gauche, en partie conservé, c, montre
a sa surface de trés-petits tubercules pointus. L/orbite est assez petite;
les sous-orbitaires qui l’entourent sont étroits et granuleux a leur surface.
Les plaques buccales, d, considérablement plus larges, semblent complétement
lisses, a en juger du moins par un fragment dont la surface est visible.
Lopercule est beaucoup plus haut que large; les autres piéces operculaires
sont enlevées.” (Poiss. Foss. I, p. 230.)

Behind the parietals occur a pair of wedge-shaped plates corresponding
to the supratemporals of Paleoniscus. These are followed in turn by the
scaly post-temporals, which in most species have a decidedly Palzoniscus-
like aspect. It is remarked by Schellwien, with regard to the plates forming
the cranial roof, that “die Mittellinie, in welcher die paarigen Platten des
Schadeldaches an einander stossen, ist keine gerade, sondern mehr oder
weniger gewellte, anscheinend besonders stark in der Parietalregion. Die
correspondierenden Platten sind auf beiden Seiten des Kopfes theilweise
sowohl in der Grésse, wie in der Form verschieden ausgebildet.”

wa-4---

Fig. [1.

Semionotus nilssonni Ag. Lateral aspect of cranium, X7/:. Lettering as in
Fig. Io.

The squamosal is a plate of variable width and irregular shape
abutting against the parietals and frontals. It is terminated
anteriorly by a ring of circumorbitals, but its posterior limits
are apparently not the same for all species. ‘The circumorbitals,
as their name implies, are a series of small plates surrounding
the orbit. They are of polygonal contour (Fig. 11), and are
arranged much in the same manner as in Lepidotus, those along
the lower border being of larger size and extending some dis-

76 ANNUAL REPORT OF

tance in advance of the upper tier. Indications of a mucous
canal are observable over part of the circumorbital ring in some
species. Immediately beneath the latter is situated a series of
suborbitals, which are much larger and less numerous than those
of Lepidotus, Dapedius and related genera. Evidence of
specialization is observable here, these large plates having no
doubt resulted from the fusion of smaller ones. ‘The boundaries
between the suborbitals and contiguous plates have not been
satisfactorily determined even in the best preserved individuals.
The postorbital, or “plaque buccale’” of Agassiz, is a large thin
plate on either side of the head, situated between the circumor-
bitals and the operculum. It is sometimes in contact with the
latter plate posteriorly, as in S. bergeri and possibly also in
S. nilssoni (although it may have been displaced in the type so
as to come to occupy this position accidentally), or in other
cases it may be entirely separated from it by the preoperculum,
as in S. capensis.

The opercular apparatus consists of (1) a large operculum, of
variable shape, but generally with a narrower upper border; (2)
a narrow, falciform preoperculum, with the mucous canal inter-
rupted and appearing as a series of perforations; (3) a sub-
operculum, the exposed surface of which generally exhibits a
sublunate outline; and (4) a triangular interoperculum. ‘The
posterior borders of the operculum and interoperculum are em-
braced by a large and heavy plate, often very conspicuous, the
clavicle. This is similar to the preoperculum in form, but is much
more solid, and its terminal angle in front is frequently thickened
or otherwise prominent. It is succeeded behind by one or two
enlarged postclavicular scales. There is a series of branchiostegal
rays, but these, like the coracoid, are seldom well preserved,
and hence not satisfactorily known. ‘The dental characters have
been indicated with sufficient fulness in the preceding family and
generic diagnoses.

In the following systematic discussions, conscientious regard
has been paid to the opinions of Professor Newberry, and none
of the changes here introduced can be said to be inharmonious
with his views, implied or expressed. But it is clear to everyone
that this author, with all his clarity of perception, did not always

TER SVATE CLOLOGisl. | 77s

carry out his arguments to their logical conclusions, and, whether
owing to conservatism or other reasons, he often declined taking
a novel procedure, preferring to abide instead by precedent and
established usage. In the second place, he was sometimes led
through caution and hesitancy to doubt his own determinations,
instances being not at all uncommon where he has contradicted
himself in this respect.

As has been remarked by Dr. Eaton, ‘“‘the late Professor New-
berry belonged to a school of paleontologists whose practice it
was to decide all doubtful cases in favor of a new species.”
Examples of this tendency are to be found in his recognizing a
distinction between S$. fultus and S. macropterus, species which
had been previously united by J. H. Redfield. Semionotus latus
was also regarded as a distinct species, although pronounced a
synonym of S. tenwiceps by earlier writers, nor are these the
only instances that might be cited. Even the identity of Eger-
ton’s genus “‘Ischypterus’ with Semionotus was more than sus-
pected by him, although he appears not to have arrived at a
decided conviction on this point. Wherever the former generic
term occurs in the present article, it is to be understood as a
synonymy of Semionotus, this being the accepted usage. ‘The
new species of Semionotus described by Professor Newberry
were named by him as follows:

Semionotus (“Ischypterus”) gigas.
robustus.
micropterus.

{ lineatus.
alatus,

modestus,

lenticularis,
elegans.

minutus.

Newberry took occasion to observe more than once in his
Monograph that his work was liable to modification through the
discovery of more and better material, and he predicted that
further investigation would probably reduce instead of increase
the number of species. The names bracketed together in the

78 ANNUAL REPORT OF

above list are treated as synonyms, the legitimacy of which
course was practically acknowledged by Newberry. For in-
stance, in the description of his so-called J. alatus, he tells us
that he “hesitated long before separating it from J. lineatus, as it
is probable that the two will be found to run into each other, so
that they must be regarded as varieties of one species.” Similarly
the differences between his Ischypterus elegans and J. lenticularis
were admitted to be so slight as to be perhaps attributable to
age or sex; and under his description of J. modestus we read:
“The fishes most nearly allied to these are those which I have
included under the name of J. elegans, and it is perhaps not cer-
tain that they should be regarded as distinct.’ It will be seen,
therefore, that no violence is done to the views of the original
author, to whom we owe much and valuable enlightenment, in
introducing a few slight modifications.

Semionotus ovatus (W. C. Redfield).

(Plates 4-6.)

1842. Palgoniscus ovatus, W. C. Redfield, Amer. Journ. Sci., vol. xli, p. 26.

1847. (?) Tetragonolepis, Sir P. G. Egerton, Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc., vol.
lls ps 2775

1850. Ischypterus ovatus, Sir P. G. Egerton, op. cit., vol. vi, p. 10.

1888. Palgoniscus ovatus, J. H. Redfield, Monogr. U. S. Geol. Surv., vol.
KIVAND ez

1888. Ischypterus ovatus, Ibid, loc. cit.

1903. Semionotus ovatus, G. F. Eaton, Amer. Journ. Sci., [4] vol. xv, p. 266.

' A large species, attaining a total length of about 23 cm. (9 in.),

with trunk very much deepened midway between the head and
dorsal fin. Scales large and thick, becoming gradually deepened
toward the middle of the flanks; tail strong and considerably ex-
panded. Number of dorsal and anal fin-fulcra greater than in
any other species, each fin having sometimes as many as twenty
or more. Length of the longest fulcrum of dorsal fin nearly
equaling one-half that of the anterior margin of the fin.

In the original description of S. ovatus, by W. C. Redfield, it
is stated that “it exceeds all the known American species in the
comparative width or roundness of its form, and is also remark-
able for the large size of its scales. It is of rare occurrence, and

PE She CEOROGIST. 79

owing probably to its great thickness, is seldom obtained in a per-
fect form.” The younger Redfield, commenting on the same
species in 1854, pronounced it “the broadest and most ovate
species of Palzeoniscus that is known,” and added further that “in
size of the scales 1t rescmbles P. A gassizi, but its form will readily
distinguish it.”

This species is recorded by both of the Redfields from the Con-
necticut Valley Trias and from Boonton, New Jersey. The same
distribution is claimed for it by Newberry, who also identifies
with this species a fragmentary individual from the Triassic Coal-
field of Virginia, originally referred to Tetragonolepis by Sir
Philip Grey Egerton. It is to be observed that all of the more
perfect examples have been obtained from Boonton, and the rec-
ognition of this species from other localities depends upon the
evidence of more or less fragmentary remains. ‘The original of
Newberry’s published figure is now preserved in the American
Museum of Natural History, in New York. In Plate VI. is repre-
sented what is evidently a young individual of this species, and
it will be noticed that some resemblance exists between it and the
published figure of the so-called S. beardmoret.

Semionotus robustus (Newberry).

1888. Ischypterus robustus, J. S. Newberry, Monogr. U. S. Geol. Surv, vol.
xiv, p30) ple wiseney

A species of slightly smaller size than the preceding, and stated
to be distinguished from it by “the great height, breadth and
strength of the dorsal fin and its anterior position.’’ Dorsal fin-
fulcra very numerous, strong, curved; rays of dorsal fin 11, very
strong. Pectorals relatively long and broad; pelvic fins inserted
nearly opposite the anterior margin of the dorsal. Dorsal ridge-
scales well developed, forming a prominent crest; trunk scales
large and strong.

This species, of which only two or three examples are known,
is doubtfully distinct from ,S. ovatus. During the time this report
was in preparation Newberry’s originals were packed in cases
awaiting rearrangement in the American Museum of Natural His-
tory in New York, and hence not available for study. They were
derived from Boonton, and no others have since been obtained.

80 ANNUAL REPORT OF

Semionotus agassizii (W. C. Redfield).

(Plate I.; Plate IL, Figs. 5; 9, 10, 12; Plate IIT., Figs: 1, 2; Plates Villsavaiey

1841. Pal@oniscus agassizui, W. C. Redfield, Amer. Journ. Sci., vol. xli., p. 26.

1850. Ischypterus agassizi, Sir P. G. Egerton, Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc., vol.
Vil, (De 10!

1856. Ischypterus marshi, W. C. Redfield, Proc. Amer. Assoc. Adv. Sci., pt.
ii., p. 188 (mame only).

1888. Ischypterus agassizii, J. S. Newberry, Monogr. U. S. Geol. Surv., vol.
Sliven Ds GOs iD ett kd aed

1888. Ischypterus marshi, J. S. Newberry, ibid., p. 28, pl. ii., Fig. 1.

1903. Semionotus marsh, G. F. Eaton, Amer. Journ. Sci. [4], vol. xv., p. 264,
Dive Pigs: 5, 0) 10s 12). planvaes esate:

ID SOROS (Cy 0775 Ng Oe ee 0,

A large and elegantly fusiform species, attaining a total length
to the base of the caudal fin of about 25 cm., in which the length
of the head and opercular apparatus is contained three and one-
half times. ‘The maximum depth occurs between the paired fins,
where the number of longitudinal scale-rows is about 20. Num-
ber of transverse scale-rows, counting along the lateral line, about
34. Scales universally large and thick. The boat-shaped dorsal
ridge-scale covering the base of the dorsal fin anteriorly is rather
small, rounded in front and not notched behind, the posterior
extremity prolonged instead into a fine point. Fins strong, but
relatively short, the caudal rather prominently forked, and with
about 17 rays. Dorsal, anal and pectoral fins with about 14 fulcra
each, the ventral with about 12. Apparently four dorsal fin-fulcra
originate on the dorsal line over the basal supports, the fifth being
slightly less than one-half the length of the anterior fin-margin.

The original description of this species by W. C. Redfield is
very meagre, the principal characters noted by him being the
stoutness of the fins, and the usually disturbed condition of the
dorsal ridge-scales. A more accurate definition was drawn up by
John H. Redfield in the report presented by him to the Amer-
ican Association of Geologists and Naturalists in 1845, portions
of which were published in the Proceedings of the Association for
1856, and still others by Professor Newberry, in 1888. Those to
whom these sources are not readily accessible may find satisfaction

THE STATE, GEOLOGIST. 81

in having the original description placed before them, which we
quote as follows:

“Head narrow and pointed, scales large and smooth, sometimes with faint
conceniric striz; those of the anterior portion of the dorsal ridge very much
elongated, strong and pointed, and apparently erectile; when in an erect posi-
tion much resembling rays, and giving the appearance of a comb-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’fin 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 eight inches; breadth, three to three and one-half inches.
Occurs at Sunderland, Mass.; Westfield and Middlefield, Conn.; Pompton and
Boonton, N. J.”

The additional characters are mentioned by Newberry that the
dorsal ridge-scales, which are usually depressed, are less strongly
developed than in S. tenwiceps, 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 the
base, curving gracefully backward to a point.”

It is further stated by Newberry that fishes answering to the
above description occur nowhere except at Boonton. As for the
remarkably similar specimens from the Connecticut Valley, these
were held by him to constitute a distinct species, which he de-
scribed under the name of Ischpterus marshi. The latter form
was supposed to differ from S. agassizii in having a less-deepened
trunk, weaker dorsal and anal fins, and thicker scales arranged in
more oblique rows along the flanks. At a subsequent period,
although there is no published record of it in his writings, he
appears to have become convinced that actual differences did not
exist, and that S. marshi should be treated as a synonym of S.
agassizu. ‘This view certainly accords with all the facts, and is
adopted in the present paper. But as Newberry did not himself
propose the abandonment of his S. marshi, it is proper to explain
this matter more fully.

6 GEOL

82 ANNUAL REPORT OF

There are preserved in the American Museum of Natural His-
tory in New York three very excellent specimens of Semionotus,
from Sunderland, Mass., which were presented to that institution
a number of years ago by Mr. Robert L. Stuart, and are referred
to by Newberry in his Monograph under the caption of Ischyp-
terus marsiu. One of them he mentions as “an exceptionally per-
fect specimen about twelve inches long,” this being probably the
identical individual which is shown in Plate VII. of this report,
and forms the basis of our restoration in Plate 1. Another of the
trio is represented in Plate VIII., this one having the pectoral fin
and dorsal ridge-scales very well preserved. After the completion
of his Monograph, these specimens were again examined by Pro-
fessor Newberry, and according to the veteran curator, Professor
Whitfield, were redetermined by him as belonging to S. agassizu,
this name being thereupon inscribed upon the labels. ‘These speci-
mens, which may be regarded upon Newberry’s authority as be-
longing undoubtedly to S. agassizu, have more recently been in-
vestigated by Dr. G. F. Eaton, of Yale University, and his opinion
is that no differences are to be observed between them and the
type of S. mars/u, which is preserved in the Yale Museum. Dr.
Eaton’s view that the species is “probably common to Massachu-
setts, Connecticut and New Jersey” is in accord with the original
statement of Redfield.

The illustration given in Piate III., fig. 1, for the use of which
we are indebted to Dr. Eaton, shows the head of the type-speci-
men of the so-called S. marshi, which is poorly represented im
Newberry’s figure. The tail, too, in the same illustration, has been
largely restored without the fact being so indicated. Certain de-
tached scales from different parts of the body are likewise repro-
duced from Dr. Eaton’s article in the American Journal of
Science. Plate I. of the present report having been drawn from
an actual photograph, it has been thought advisable to leave the
squamation, including the dorsal ridge-scales, and also the fin-
rays, exactly as they occur in the original specimen, without at-
tempting a restoration.

ii SATE GEOLOGIST: 83
Semionotus gigas (Newberry).

1888. Ischypterus gigas, J. S. Newberry, Trans. N. Y. Acad. Sci., vol. vi., p.
127 (name only).

1888. IJschypterus gigas, J. S. Newberry, Monogr. U. S. Geol. Surv., vol. xiv.,
p. 49, pl. xiv., Fig. 3.

This species is founded upon the fragmentary caudal portion of
a large example of Semionotus from the Newark series at
Boonton, the total length of the fish being estimated by Newberry
to have been about two feet. It is quite possible that the type
specimen was simply a large-sized individual of S. agassizii, but in
the absence of all other material the name may be allowed to stand
in a provisional sense as indicating a form not clearly distinguish-
able from the preceding.

Semionotus fultus (Agassiz).

(Plate II., Figs. 1-4; Plate IX.)

1833-36. Palgoniscus fultus, L. Agassiz, Poiss. Foss., vol. ii., pt. i., pp. 4, 43,
pl. viii., Figs. 4, 5.

1841. Palgoniscus fultus, W. C. Redfield, Amer. Journ. Sci., vol. xli., p. 25.

1841. Paleoniscus macropterus, W. C. Redfield, tbid., p. 25.

1847. Ischypterus fultus, Sir P. Egerton, Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc., vol. 11.
Pp. 277.

1850. Ischypterus fultus, Sir P. Egerton, ibid., vol. vi., pp. 8, Io.

1877. Ischypterus fultus, R. H. Traquair, ibid., vol. xxxiii., p. 559.

1888. Ischypterus fultus, J. S. Newberry, Monogr. U. S. Geol. Surv., vol. xiv.,
p34, pl. vi., Pie: 25 pl. vil., Figs x.

1888. Ischypterus macropterus, J. S. Newberry, ibid., p. 41, pl. xit., Fig. 1.

1901. Semionotus tenuiceps, W. H. Hobbs, 21st Ann. Rept. U. S. Geol. Surv.,
pt. iii., p. 56, pl. iii, Fig. A (errore).*

1901. Semionotus fultus, E. Schellwien, Phys.-6kon. Gesellsch. Konigsberg,
Pp. 29) Pl ai bigs. A Ge).5:

1903. Semionotus fultus, G. F. Eaton, Amer. Journ. Sci. [4], vol. xv., p. 261,
pl. v., Figs. 1-4.

1895. Semionotus fultus, A. S. Woodward, Cat. Foss. Fishes Brit Mus., pt.
iii., p. 58.

The synonymy given above is that generally concurred in by
recent writers. The two species, S. fultus and S. macropterus,

1The present writer is not responsible for this determination. The original
of Fig. B was referred by him to S. fultus, that of Fig. A to Catopterus.

84 ANNUAL REPORT OF

were first united by J. H. Redfield in his report presented to the
American Association of Geologists and Naturalists in 1845, but
were again separated by Professor Newberry on the ground of
their seeming to present slight differences in the proportions of
length and depth—appearances due to varying conditions of
preservaton. ‘The principal characters distinctive of this species
may be enumerated as follows: |

1D)s OS (Cz AE BIN, KO) 8 JE, Oy

A gracefully fusiform species attaining a total length to the
base of the caudal fin of about 15 cm., in which the length of
the head and opercular apparatus is contained three and one-
half times. The maximum depth of trunk, which is equal to
about one-fourth the total length, occurs midway between the
head and dorsal fin, where there are about 20 longitudinal rows
of scales. Lateral line scales about 33. Dorsal fin arising at
mid-length, pelvic nearer to anal than to the pectoral pair, arising
opposite a point directly in advance of the dorsal. Caudal not
much forked. Anal with 10 rays, partly opposed to hinder half
of the dorsal, its origin being on the third oblique scale-row in
advance of the dorsal fin. Dorsal fin-fulcra about 12, anal Io,
ventral and pectoral 10 each. Apparently four dorsal fin-fulcra
originate on the dorsal margin over the interneurals. The fifth
dorsal fulcrum has its origin adjacent to that of the first ray
(Fig. 12), and is about equal in length to one-half the anterior
margin of the fin. . Scales smooth and not serrated posteriorly,
the deepest ones occurring in the fourth row behind the clavicular
arch; these are about twice as deep as they are wide in their
exposed portion. Dorsal ridge-scales acuminate.

THE STATE, GEOLOGIST. nm 85

Fig. I2.
Semionotus fultus Ag. Fulcra and anterior rays of dorsal fin

As already remarked, the sole criterion relied upon by New-
berry for distinguishing the so-called S. macropterus consisted in
a supposed relatively greater depth of body—‘‘the fusiform and
slender fish standing for J. fultws, and the broader one for J.
macropterus.’ Curiously enough, it has been shown by Dr.
Eaton, after a study of Newberry’s originals in the American
Museum of Natural History, that whereas one of the specimens
of S. macropterus in its compressed and flattened condition is
deeper than a type of S. fuléus, all the others are proportionately
more slender. J. H. Redfield, after advocating the suppression
of the name “macropterus,’ remarks that S. fultus is specially
characterized by the length of the dorsal and anal fins, which
are even longer than in S. tenuiceps.? A comparison of text Fig-
ures 12 and 13 will enable one to appreciate the differences as
regards structure of the dorsal fin in this species and S. muicrop-
terus. In Plate IX. of this report is given a photographic repro-
duction of one of Newberry’s originals.

This is the most abundant of all the New Jersey species, and in
the Connecticut Valley Trias is only inferior numerically to the
ubiquitous S. tenuiceps. ‘The average length is stated by New-

* Amer. Journ. Sci. [4], vol. xv., p. 262.
* Cit., Newberry, Monogr. U. S. Geol. Surv., vol. xiv. (1888), p. 35.

ea)

6 ANNUAL REPORT OF

berry to be about six inches, the extreme of eight inches being
only rarely attained.

Senuonotus tenuiceps (Agassiz).

1835-36. Eurynotus tenuiceps, L. Agassiz, Poiss. Foss., vol. ii., pt. i., pp. 150,
203) ple xive Cb tgsh Anns:

1837. Paleontscus latus, J. H. Redfield, Ann. Lyceum Nat. Hist., N. Y., vol.
fdvay 184 Steh DS aut.

1837, Eurynotus tenuiceps, J. H. Redfield, ibid., p. 30.

1841. Eurynotus tenuiceps, E. Hitchcock, Geol. Mass., vol. ii., p. 459, pl. xxix.,
Migsente2

1841. Paleoniscus latus, W. C. Redfield, Amer. Journ. Sci., vol. xli., p. 25.

1850. Ischypterus latus, Sir P. Egerton, Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc., vol. vi., p. Io.

1857. Eurinotus ceratocephalus, E. Emmons, Amer. Geology, pt. 6, p. 144,

pleeixia:
1860. FHurinotus ceratocephalus, E. Emmons, Manual Geology, ed. 2, p. 188,
Fig. 164.
1877. Ischypterus latus, R. H. Traquair, Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc., vol. xxxiii,
p. 559.

1888. IJschypterus tenuiceps, J. S. Newberry, Monogr. U. S. Geol. Surv., vol.
KVe, De 32, Dl vay Bigswt-3 sy splasvilekios oe

1888. Ischypterus latus, J. S. Newberry, ibid., p. 46, pl. liii., Fig. 3.

1889. Allolepidotus americanus, W. Deecke, Paleontogr., vol. xxxv., p. 114.

1895. Semionotus tenuiceps, A. S. Woodward, Cat. Foss. Fishes Brit. Mus.,
pt. 111, p. 50:

1901. Semionotus tenuiceps, W. H. Hobbs, 21st Rept. U. S. Geol. Surv., pt.
iii., p. 56 (non pl. 4).

1903. Semitonotus tenuiceps, G. F. Eaton, Amer. Journ. Sci. [4], vol. xv.,
p. 205.

A species attaining a total length of about 20 cm., and readily
distinguished from all others (except in young stages) by the
excessive development of the dorsal ridge-scales; these are very
large and conspicuous, and, in mature individuals, comparatively
obtuse. The anterior dorsal outline is considerably arched,
usually forming a characteristic “hump” immediately behind the
head. Length of head and opercular apparatus less than the
maximum depth of the trunk, and contained four times in the
total length of the fish. Fins as in S. fultus. Scales smooth
and serrated, those of the middle of the flank in part twice as
deep as broad. The dorsal ridge-scale immediately in advance -
of the dorsal fin has its posterior border obtuse, and not pro-
duced, and the corresponding ridge-scale in front of the anal fin

TEE, Sle CROUOCIST. 87

is notched behind. Ribs more strongly developed than in any
other species.

It is usually possible to determine this form with great facility,
even in the case of fragmentary remains, none of the other species
having the back so much elevated immediately behind the head, and
set along the middle with such long, thickened, distally pointed
or clavate scales. The ribs are also more conspicuous than in
most other species, their curved outlines showing sometimes even
when covered with scales. Owing to the frequency with which
this species has been illustrated, and impossibility of mistaking it
amongst collections, it has not been Souusiicienee Tete to
figure it in the present report.

S. tenuiceps outnumbers all other species in the Connecticut
Valley Trias, and is tolerably abundant also in New Jersey. At
Turner’s Falls and at Sunderland, Mass., it is especially common,
probably more than one-half of the individuals derived from the
latter locality pertaining to this form.

Senuonotus micropterus (Newberty).

(Plate II. Figs. 6-8, 11, 13.)

1888. Ischypterus micropterus, J. S. Newberry, Trans. N. Y. Acad Sci., vol.
Vi., p. 127 (name only).

1888. Ischypterus micropterus, J. S. Newberry, Monogr. U. S. Geol. Surv.,
VOLextv., p. 31, pli iv., Pigs, 1, 2; pl. x11., ‘Fig: 2.

1893. Ischypterus newberryi, S. W. Loper, Pop. Sci. News, p.

1903. Semionotus micropterus, G. F. Faton, Amer. Journ. Sci. [4], vol. xv.,
p. 263, pl. v., Figs. 6-8.

1D) 553 \Cop IE lancer

A regularly fusiform species attaining a total length to the
base of caudal fin of about 20 cm., the maximum depth occurring
in the pectoral region and not exceeding 8 cm. ‘The dorsal and
ventral contours are more strongly convex than in S. fultus, but
the relative position and size of the fins are about the same in
the two species. Dorsal, anal and pectoral fin-fulcra relatively
shorter than in S. fultus. Apparently three dorsal fin-fulcra
originate on the dorsal line over the interneurals. The fifth
dorsal fulcrum has its origin on the anterior margin of the an-

88 ANNUAL REPORT OF

terior ray at a considerable distance from its base, and is about
one-third as long as the anterior fin-margin (Fig. 13). Pec-

Fig. 13.

Semionotus micropterus (Newb.).- Fulcra and anterior rays of dorsal fin.

torals with upwards of 20 fulcra. Ridge-scales moderate, spini-
form, the one immediately in advance of the dorsal fin slightly
produced into a point behind. Scales frequently serrated, those
below the lateral line on the flanks tending to become bi- or tri-
dentate on the postero-inferior angle (text-fig. 13).

According to Newberry, the most striking diagnostic charac-
ters 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 maximum size
attained by this species, as stated by the same authority, is “ten
and one-half inches long by three and one-half inches wide, the
smallest * * * only about three and one-half inches long.”
The fin and scale characters have been worked out in detail by Dr.
G. F. Eaton, from whose paper the illustrations given in Plate IT.
are borrowed.

This species is known only from Connecticut, and is stated by
Newberry to be especially common in the vicinity of Durham. It
is possible that the detached head figured by Schellwien, in Plate
III., fig. 4, of his memoir belongs to the species in question, this _
being one of the few in which the cheek plates are granulated.

THE STATE GEOLOGIST. 89

Semionotus lineatus (Newberry).
(Plates X., XI.)

1888. Ischypterus lineatus, J. S. Newberry, Trans. N. Y. Acad. Sci., vol. vi.,
p. 127 (name only).

1888. Ischypterus alatus, J. S. Newberry, ibid., p. 127 (name only).

1888. Ischypterus alatus, J. S$. Newberry, Monogr. U. §. Geol. Surv., vol. xiv.,
Das7 pl. Vili Biss, -D, 2)

1888. Ischypterus lineatus, J. S. Newberry, ibid., p. 40, pl. xi., Figs. 1, 2.

The original description of this species is as follows:

“Fishes six to eight inches in length; outline, when perfectly
preserved, uniformly arched above and below; head relatively
large, contained about four times in the entire length, broadly con-
ical in outline; fins all large; fulcra arched; scales of dorsal line
spinous and strong, but less developed than in J. tenuwiceps; 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 specific
name.”

It will be observed that the above diagnosis applies to robust
and comparatively large-sized fishes, with thick scales and strong
fins and ribs. Distinctive characters, by which the species can be
readily separated from others accompanying it in the same forma-
tion, are not embraced in this. general definition. For instarice,
nothing is stated in regard to the fulcra, except that they are
“arched”; their number, and likewise that of the fin-rays, is not
given in the text, nor is it apparent from the figures, and it is evi-
dent that one of the latter has been more or less restored. Ina
word, the species has not yet been adequately defined, and on
inquiring in what light Newberry viewed its relations to other
species, we find that he was considerably perplexed over their
distinction. In one place, for instance, it is stated by him?’ that
“the fishes of this group [referring to S. lineatus] are not easily
separated from some of their associates, some individuals re-
sembling those of J. lenticularis; but in these latter the outline is
more symmetrical, the fins smaller, the scales more delicate, par-

* Monogr. U. S. Geol. Surv., vol. xiv. (1889), p. 40.

90 ' ANNUAL REPORT OF

ticularly those of the dorsal line. On the other hand they ap-
proach through the smaller individuals the group to which I have
given the name of J. 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, in-
cluding the narrower forms, comes nearer to J. fuliws. 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 narrow lanceolate outlines of J. fultus.”

At the close of his general remarks on the genus Ischypterus,
on page 27 of his Monograph, Newberry makes the following
significant statement: “In the following pages, so far as I have
been able, | have enumerated and defined all the species of the
genus which have come under my observation. I deem it neces-
sary 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 J. lineatus, and I. modestus a
phase of J. elegans; but with marked differences and without
connecting links, so far as yet observed, it has seemed to me
hardly justifiable without further evidence of identity to unite
them under a common name.”

Amongst the species admitted by Newberry to bear a close
resemblance to S. lineatus, his so-called S. alatus approaches it
so closely as to have created doubt in the author’s mind whether
it was really distinct from the form under consideration. His
remarks on this subject are as follows: ““The fishes to which
I have given the name of I[schypterus alatus, and have repre-
sented in Pl. VIII., are perhaps most like those under considera-
tion [S. lineatus|, and I have hesitated long hefore 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.”
Not only was their founder sceptical as to a distinction between
S. lineatus and S. alatus, but no one else who has examined his
types has been able to discover essential differences between them.
They are here regarded as identical, and it may be further stated
that the resemblance between S. lineatus and S. elegans is such as
to excite suspicion lest we have not to do in the one case with

THE STATE GEOLOGIST. gt

the adult, and in the other with immature forms belonging to
one and the same species.

Little can be added to the definition already given of S. line-
atus, for the reason that no further satisfactory material has
come to light. In determining fragmentary individuals, the
chief features to be relied upon are first of all the dorsal and anal
fin-fulcra, which form a fringe fully as wide at the base as in
S. ovatus, are as strongly curved as in that species, and are
relatively longer. The moderately deep trunk, conspicuous ribs,
and minor scale characters are also of service in distinguishing
these fishes from other members of the same fauna.

Semionotus elegans (Newberry).
(Plate XII.)

1888. Ischypterus elegans, modestus, lenticularis, J. S. Newberry, Trans. N.
Y. Acad. Sci., vol. vi., p. 127 (names only).

1888. Ischypterus elegans, J. S. Newberry, Monogr. U. S. Geol, Surv., vol.
SVE De Gye ipl) wil. ioe 2 plex) Rigs Ts) sivas Nios 1.2:

1888. Ischypterus modestus, J. S. Newberry, ibid, p. 38, pl. ix., Figs. 1-3.

1888. Ischypterus lenticularis, J. S. Newberry, ibid, p. 39, pl. x., Figs. 2, 3.

D. 11; C.15; A. 7. Lat. line scales about 32 (fide Newberry).

A species of slightly smaller size than the preceding, and. dis-
tinguished from it only by its fin and scale characters. Dorsal
fin arising at mid-length, with 12 fulcra, which are shorter and
more closely appressed than in S. lineatus. Anal fin not extend-
ing to the base of the tail, with about 10 fulcra. Squamation
regular, firmly united, and hence usually preserved intact; num-
ber of scales along the lateral line about 32, in transverse rows
at widest part of trunk about 20; ridge-scales in advance of the
dorsal fin 18-20, moderate in size; the hindermost ridge-scale
shield-shaped, not emarginate posteriorly. Dorsal and ventral
outlines symmetrically arched, but rapidly contracting behind the
median fins to a depth equal only to about half that of the middle
of the trunk.

It will be noticed in the above synonymy that three of New-
berry’s species are united under one head. ‘The propriety of this
arrangement is self-evident, there being absolutely no characters

92 ANNUAL REPORT OF

for distinguishing them from one another. ‘This was virtually
acknowledged by Newberry, as the following extracts show, al-
though through hesitancy he maintained their formal separation.
Under the description of ,S. elegans we read:

“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 nearly resembles J. lineatus,
but is smaller and broader, the back more distinctly and regularly
arched, and the scales more numerous.” As to the affinities of
the so-called S. modestus, Newberry remarks: ‘The fishes most
nearly allied to these are those which I have included under the
name of /. elegans, and it is perhaps not certain they should be
regarded as distinct,’ and finally, under the head of “Jschypterus
lenticularis,’ it is stated: ‘‘The relation between these smaller
ovoid fishes is rather to those to which I have given the name
I. 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 before the dorsal fin, concavely narrowed
behind. Hence I have supposed that they constitute a distinct
species.”

There is still further proof of Newberry’s indecision in this
matter. Examination of the co-types of his so-called S. modestus,
now preserved in the American Museum of Natural History
in New York, shows one of them to bear an original label
in Newberry’s handwriting, which reads as follows: “Jsch.
modestus.—Perhaps only a variety of Isch. elegans N., but
having a broader and more rounded head, stronger fins, and
larger and thicker scales——J. $. N.” The scant importance of
these characters can be appreciated on comparing the figure of
this specimen, which is given at the bottom of his Plate IX, with
the figures properly referred to S. elegans.

Anyone who attentively examines a large series of Boonton
fishes, and attempts to identify the more slender and elegantly
fusiform species according to Newberry’s ideas, will appreciate
the difficulties presented by the wide range of effects produced by
distortion, faulty preservation, and individual variation. The

TE SEE ChOLOGIST, 93

contour of the head, curvature of the dorsal and ventral margins
(within certain limits), and slight differences:in the thickness
and obliquity of the squamation, will come to be regarded as
characters of minimum importance; and in the present instance,
absolutely valueless for discriminating between S. elegans, S.
modestus and S. lenticularis. In Plate XII we have refigured one
of Professor Newberry’s originals.

Semionotus brauni (Newberry).

1886. Palgoniscus latus, L. P. Gratacap, Amer. Nat., vol. xx., p. 243, text-
fig. (errore).

1888. Ischypterus brauni, J. S. Newberry, Trans. N. Y. Acad. Sci., vol. vi., p.
127 (name only).

1888. IJschypterus brauni, J. S. Newberry, Monogr. U. S. Geol. Surv., vol. xvi,
Pasa ple din Mee saps xii, Higher, (2:

A small species, attaining a total length to the base of caudal
fin of about Io cm., in which the length of the head and oper-
cular apparatus is contained in a little more than three times.
Cranial bones granulated. Fins small, with delicate fulcra and
trays; dorsal and anal remote, the latter extending to the base
of the caudal. Scales rhomboidal or quadrangular, remarkably
uniform in size over the greater part of the trunk. Dorsal ridge-
scales small, anteriorly rounded, and terminating in a short,
pointed prolongation behind.

This small and imperfectly known species occurs at a horizon
several thousand feet lower than that of Boonton, being limited
to the base of the Triassic system in New Jersey. ‘The partic-
ulars of its occurrence are thus indicated by Newberry: “The
only locality from which fishes of the present species have been
obtained is Weehawken, N. J. MHere, beneath the trap of the
Palisades, is a stratum of highly metamorphosed slate which was
once a bitunainous shale, but which has been baked by the effu-
sion of the great mass of molten matter above it; the fishes are
found in this slate. In some layers it also contains great num-
bers of bivalve crustaceans (Estheria), which would seem to
indicate that it was deposited in brackish water.’

94 ANNUAL REPORT OF
DOUBTFUL, SPECIES.

A number of small forms, some of them no doubt representing
the young of different species, have been described from the Con-
necticut Valley and from New Jersey, but owing to one cause or
another, such as faulty preservation, inadequate description, or
subsequent injury to or loss of the type-specimens, the names
which have been proposed for them cannot be said to rest
upon a secure foundation. In this category may be placed
the so-called “Jschypterus parvus’ founded upon a figure pub-
lished in Hitchcock’s Geology of Massachusetts in 1835 ; “Ischyp-
terus minutus’ Newberry, from Durham, Connecticut; “/schyp-
terus newberryv’ Loper, also from Durham; and “Tschypterus
beardmoret’ Smith, from Boonton. The last name was pro-
posed without definition for a specimen figured in the Metro-
politan Magazine for October, 1900 (p. 502). Except for its
small size, the original (which belongs to Mr. G. C. Berrien, of
Upper Montclair) is suggestive of Semionotus ovatus. Mr.
Loper’s species is considered by Dr. Eaton to be identical en
S. nucropterus.

Genus ACENTROPHUS Traquair.

Trunk fusiform; teeth slender. Fins small, with very large
fulcra; dorsal fin short, opposed to the space between the anal
and the pelvic pair; caudal fin symmetrical, slightly forked.
Scales rhombic, smooth or feebly ornamented; no enlarged dorsal
ridge-scales; the scales of the flank not much deeper than broad,
and those of the ventral aspect nearly equilateral.

It will be noticed that the only trenchant distinction between
this genus and Semionotus consists in the absence of enlarged
ridge-scales.

Acentrophorus chicopensis Newberry.

1888. Acentrophorus chicopensis, J. S. Newberry, Monogr. U. S. Geol. Surv.,
vol. xiv., p. 60, pl. xix., Figs. 3, 4.

Under this name are described certain fishes of moderate size
(“six inches long by one and one-half inches wide,’ according

THE STATE GEOLOGIST. 95

to Newberry), which are too imperfectly preserved for satis-
factory determination or definition. They have been obtained
from but a single locality, in rather coarse sandy shales near
Chicopee Falls, Mass., which have been considerably metamor-
phosed by igneous agencies. ‘This circumstance, as stated by
Newberry, “has obscured some of the details of structure, such
as the surface of the scales, the shape and markings of the head-
bones, etc., but has left the outlines of the body and the position
and form of the fins distinctly visible. The most striking char-
acters of these fishes are the narrow wedge-shaped form of 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.” Assuming
the correctness of the generic determination, this is the only
species of Acentrophorus which has yet been recognized in this
country.

Family CATOPTERIDA:,

Genus CatopTEeRus Redfield (Redfeldius Hay).

Trunk elegantly fusiform, head relatively small, tail hemi-
heterocercal. External bones more or less ornamented with
ridges and tubercles of ganoine; no median series of cranial roof
bones. Fins of moderate size, consisting of robust rays, more
or less enameled, and distally bifurcated; fulcra well developed,
short and closely set. Dorsal and anal fins triangular, the
origin of the former behind that of the latter; caudal fin forked.
Scales large or of moderate size, nearly or quite smooth, and
serrated along their postero-inferior margin; dorsal ridge-scales
not much enlarged. ‘Teeth numerous, small, acutely conical.

This is an exclusively American genus, although a closely
allied form, Dictyopyge, occurs in both Europe and America.
These two genera constitute a family by themselves, Catopteride,
which is evidently descended from the ancient Paleomscide, the
group from which modern sturgeons and paddle-fishes are
also derived. ‘The structure of the head and shoulder-girdle has
not yet been worked out for these two Triassic genera, but they

96 ANNUAL REPORT OF

have a general Paleoniscid aspect, the eye being far forwards,
snout prominent, and gape of the mouth wide. In this short-
lived family, also, specialization had not advanced so far as to
result in the correlation of the dermal rays of the unpaired fins
with their endoskeletal supports, and the scales are all rhombic
and ganoid, as in the more ancient types.

Remains of Catopterus are on the whole less abundant than
those of the accompanying genus Semionotus, both in New Eng-
land and New Jersey, and as a rule are less perfectly preserved.
Nevertheless, the characters presented by the former genus are
so well marked and distinctive that there is seldom any diffi-
culty in determining even the most fragmentary individuals.
The most obvious peculiarity of the genus consists, as the name
implies, in the remote position of the dorsal fin. In Semionotus
the dorsal is always anterior to the anal, in Catopterus it is either
opposite or posterior. ‘The margins of all the fins are thickly set
with fine fulcra, and present in consequence a delicately fringed
appearance, and the fin-rays themselves are very numerous, finely
articulated, and enameled. Other noticeable differences con-
sist in the ornamented condition of the cranial bones, and serra-
tion of the hinder margin of the scales.

Although the genus Semionotus is represented ; in this country
by half a dozen or more species, only two of Catopterus can be
definitely recognized. These are C. gracilis Redfield and C. red-
fieldi Egerton, both founded on large and nearly complete fishes
which differ from one another chiefly in the proportions of body
proportions and scale characters. The so-called C. parvulus
Redfield is probably to be regarded as the young of C. gracilis.
Catopterus minor and C. ornatus Newberry are supposed to stand
in a similar relation to C. redfieldi.

Catopterus gracilis J. H. Redfield.
(Plate XIII.)

1837. Catopterus gracillis, J. H. Redfield, Ann. Lyceum Nat. Hist., N. Y., vol.

vol. iv., pp. 37-39, pl. 1.
1841. Catopterus gracilis, W. C. Redfield, Amer. Journ. Sci., vol. xli., p. 27.
1888. Catopterus gracilis, J. S. Newberry, Monogr. U. S. Geol. Surv., vol. xiv.,

p. 55) pitexvi.,, Migs. 1-3)

THE STATE GEOLOGIST. 97

1895. Catopterus gracilis, A. S. Woodward, Cat. Foss. Fishes Brit. Mus., pt.
iii, p. 2.

1901. Semionotus fultus, W. H. Hobbs, 21st Ann. Rept. U. S. Geol. Surv.,
pt. iii, p 56, pl. 4, Fig. B (errore).

The type species, attaining a total length of about 25 cm.
Length of head with opercular apparatus about equal to the max-
imum depth of trunk, and contained five times in the total length
of the fish; depth of caudal pedicle somewhat less than one-half
that of the abdominal region. Cranial bones finely granulated.
Pelvic fins arising about midway between the pectorals and anal;
dorsal and anal fins subequal in size, and almost completely op-
posed. Scales smooth, none deeper than broad, those of the
flank in the abdominal region very finely serrated.

The fin-formula for this species as given in Usa original
description by J. H. Redfield is as follows:

D. 10-12; C. 30-40; A. 20-30; V. circa 8; P. 10-12.

In the additional notes on this form given by the elder Red-
field, it is stated that “the pectoral fins are of an elongated form,
and are strengthened on the anterior margin by one or two large
and partly flattened rays, to the front of which the fringe of
fine raylets [fulcra] is attached. Owing to this peculiarity of
structure, the smallest section of the pectoral fin will often serve
to identify this species.”

Ordinarily there is little question as to what constitutes the
type of a species. In the present instance, the original descrip-
tion is founded upon characters exhibited by four or five typical
specimens, one of which is figured in Plate I. of Redfield’s paper.
This last specimen was stated to be in the possession of the Yale
Natural History Society at New Haven, and is now preserved in
the Peabody Museum of Yale University. The present where-
abouts of the remaining co-types are unknown, hence the figured
specimen at Yale is the only authentic example now in evidence
that has served for the establishment of this species. Professor
Newberry, who examined it during the preparation of his Mono-
graph, concluded that it possessed a greater depth of trunk than
is normal for this species, and proposed its transfer to C. red-
fieldi, Egerton. This procedure could only be justified in case

7 GEOL

98 ANNUAL REPORT OF

it were shown that the example in question displayed characters
irreconcilable with the definition of C. gracilis, or differed beyond
the limits of individual variation from the other typical specimens
referred to in the original description. But neither of these
requisite conditions has been fulfilled, nor apparently can they
be, hence we may continue to regard Redfield’s figured specimen
as one of the authentic co-types of this species. It is to be hoped
that its characters may be critically re-investigated, and in partic-
ular the details of its cranial osteology made known, since in this
specimen the head-structure is unusually well displayed. It is
observed by Newberry that “unfortunately the head bones are
not only generally displaced, but they are covered with a coat-
ing which obscures the sutures, the matrix clinging to the gran-
ulated surfaces of the head bones much more closely than to
the polished scales.”’

This species occurs at Boonton and at various New England
localities, being especially abundant at Durham. ‘The Connecti-
cut Valley material is as a rule better preserved than that of New

Jersey.
Catopterus redfieldi Egerton.

1847. Catopterus redfeldi, Sir P. Egerton, Quam. Journ. Geol. Soc., vol. iii.,
p. 278.

1888. Catopterus redfieldi, J. S. Newberry, Monogr. U. S. Geol. Surv., vol.
xiv., p. 53, pl. xv., Figs. 1-3.

1895. Catopterus redfieldi, A. S. Woodward, Cat. Foss. Fishes Brit. Museum,
Pt ills ps:

““A broader species than the preceding [C. gracilis], and with
scales not so long in proportion to their depth.” —Egerton.

The above definition has been supplemented by a number of
diagnostic characters pointed out by Newberry, and incorporated
by him into a precise description, which has been condensed by
Smith Woodward as follows:

“A comparatively robust species as large as the type. Length
of head with opercular apparatus not more than two-thirds as
ereat as the maximum depth of the trunk, and contained nearly
six times in the total length of the fish; depth of caudal pedicle

THE STATE GEOLOGIST. 99

equaling about one-third that of the abdominal region. Cranial
bones finely granulated. Pelvic fins arising midway between the
pectorals and the anal; dorsal and anal fins nearly equal in size,
and the former arising opposite to the middle of the latter. Scales
mostly smooth, but sometimes in part longitudinally striated,
the striz terminating in the coarse serrations of the posterior
border which characterize the principal flank-scales; many of the
flank-scales deeper than broad.”

The distribution of this species is identical with that of its
congener, and, like the latter, it is more abundant at Durham than
elsewhere.

Genus Dicryopycs Egerton.

Distinguished from Catopterus only by the more anterior posi-
tion of the dorsal fin, which never arises behind the origin of
the anal.

Dictyopyge macrura W. C. Redfield.

1841. Catopterus macrurus, W. C. Redfield, Amer. Journ. Sci., vol. xli., p. 27.

1847. Dictyopyge macrura, Sir P. Egerton, Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc., vol. iii.,
p. 276, pl. viii., pl. ix., Fig. 1.

1857. Catopterus macrurus, W. C. Redfield, Proc. Amer. Assoc. Adv. Sci.
1856, pt. ii., p. 186.

1888. Dictyopyge macrura, J. S. Newberry, Monogr. U. S. Geol. Surv., vol.
xiv., p. 64, pl. xviii., Figs. 1, 2.

1895. Dictyopyge macrura, J. S. Newberry, A. S. Woodward, Cat. Foss.
Fishes Brit. Museum, pt. ili., p. 4, text-fig. 1.

A species attaining a total length of about 15 cm. Length of
head with opercular apparatus somewhat less than the maximum
depth of the trunk, and contained nearly five times in the total
length of the fish; depth of caudal pedicle less than one-half of
that of the abdominal region. Cranial bones externally orna-
‘mented with fine granulations. Pelvic fins arising midway be-
tween the pectorals and anal fin; dorsal at least as high as long,
arising slightly in advance of the anal and nearly as large as the
latter; anal with about 30 rays, and extending almost to the
base of the caudal fin. Scales smooth, not serrated.

100 ANNUAL REPORT OF

This species is not represented in New Jersey, being confined,
so far as known, to the Triassic Coal-field of Virginia.

Family EUGNATHID2.

Trunk fusiform or elongate, not much laterally compressed.
Cranial and facial bones moderately robust, externally enameled,
and opercular apparatus complete; gape of mouth wide, snout not
produced, marginal teeth conical, and larger than the inner teeth.
Fin-rays robust, articulated, and distally divided fulcra con-
spicuous. Dorsal fin short and acuminate. Scales rhombic,
sometimes with rounded posterior angles.

Genus PtycHoLEPis Agassiz.

Trunk elegantly fusiform; snout acutely pointed and promi-
nent; external bones highly ornamented with prominent ridges;
marginal teeth very small and regular; dorsal fin in advance of
anal, caudal fin forked; scales all narrow and elongate, marked
with deep longitudinal grooves. Fulcra biserial, conspicuous on
all the fins excepting the dorsal.

Ptycholepts marsht Newberry.

1878. Ptycholepis marshi, J. S. Newberry, Ann, N.Y: Acadsseiynvolagizup:
ie

1888. Ptycholepis marshi, J. S. Newberry, Monogr. U. S. Geol. Surv., vol.
XLV; POO. plaxixe. his suter2

1895. Ptycholepis marshi, A. S. Woodward, Cat. Foss. Fishes Brit. Museum,
pt. diisepes324s

A species of slender proportions, attaining a length of about
20cm. Head with opercular apparatus occupying somewhat less
than one-fourth the total length of the fish. Ornamental ruge
of cranial roof slightly radiating; those of the facial and oper- ,
cular bones more or less parallel and forked. Dorsal fin far
forwards, and pelvic fins arising opposite its hinder extremity.
Scales exhibiting only longitudinal ridges and furrows, and the
hinder border often deeply serrated. (Woodward).

THE STATE GEOLOGIST. IOI

No indications of this species have yet been discovered in New
Jersey. The dozen or so examples which have been obtained were
all derived from the Newark series of Durham, Connecticut.

Order CROSSOPTERYGII.
Family COELACANTHIDA:,

Body deeply and irregularly fusiform, with cycloidal, deeply
overlapping scales, more or less ornamented with ganoine.
Branchiostegal apparatus between the mandibular rami consist-
ing of a pair of large gular plates. Paired fins obtusely lobate;
two dorsal fins, the anterior without baseosts, the posterior dor-
sal and the anal with baseosts, obtusely lobate. Axial skeleton
extending to the extremity of the caudal fin, usually projecting
and terminated by a small supplementary caudal. Air-bladder
ossified.

Genus Diprurus Newberry.

Supplementary caudal fin prominent, with much ,elongated
pedicle; fin-rays robust, closely articulated in the distal half; pre-
axial rays of the first dorsal and caudal fins with spinous
tubercles. Scales and head-bones irregularly striated.

Diplurus longicaudatus Newberry.

1878. Diplurus longicaudatus, J. S. Newberry, Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci., vol. i,
Tee ere
1888. Diplurus longicaudatus, J. S. Newberry, Monger U. S. Geol. Surv.,
VOI EXIV= (phe pl. xx.

The type and only known species, attaining a total length of
about 70 cm. to the tip of the supplementary caudal fin, and maxi-
mum depth of trunk of about 20cm. Anterior dorsal fin strong,
supported by a single large laminar axonost; the lobate posterior
dorsal nearly opposite the anal, and corresponding to it in form
and size; caudal fin much elongated, and separated from the
supplementary caudal by a distinct interval; paired fins obtusely
_ lobate; scales large cycloidal, and deeply overlapping; the ex-

1o2 ANNUAL REPORT OF STATE GEOLOGIST:

posed portion marked with fine longitudinal ruge; teeth un-
known.

This large Crossopterygian is of extremely rare occurrence,
being known only by five specimens, two of which were obtained
from Boonton, and the remainder from Durham, Connecticut.
All of these specimens are now preserved in the American
Museum of Natural History, in New York.

Explanations of Plates.

(103)

PLATE I.
Semionotus agassizii (W. C. Redfield). Newark series:

Lateral aspect of nearly perfect specimen belongir
Museum of Natural History, New York, X%

(104)

PI AckBal:

‘tA XX (Jpey) WZISSvOV SALONOINAS

es

Eee

>
,

ti3

cc

os ff te

© DON D

To.

II.

12.

I3.

Pi AE lle

Semionotus fultus (Ag.). Dorsal fin.
5 Pectoral fin. .

Anterior flank scales.

Posterior flank scales.

Semionotus agassizii (W. C. Redf.). Scales from the twelfth longi-
tudinal row, a little below the lateral line.

Semionotus micropterus (Newb.). Pectoral fin.
a ‘ Anterior flank scales.

Posterior flank scales.

Semionotus agassizii (W. C. Redf.). Posterior flank scales show-
ing “pegs.”

Semionotus agassizii (W. C. Redf.). Hindermost scale of anterior
dorsal ridge.

Semionotus micropterus (Newb.). Hindermost scale of anterior
dorsal ridge.

Semionotus agassizu (W. C. Redf.). Scales of the seventh and
eighth longitudinal rows, immediately below the lateral line.

Semionotus micropterus (Newb.) Dorsal fin.

cc 6é

6é 6é 6é

All the figures of Plate II. are of twice the natural size, and drawn by Dr.
G. F. Eaton from specimens belonging to the Yale Museum. (See American
Journal of Science, vol. xv., April, 1003.)

(106)

Posts be cee saa, Gini
A ea ‘i yi es ze te pe ae
iit S Why “om ais onan See ; wetvaeage) \

i: nates

PLATE III.

Fig. 1. Semionotus agassizii (W. C. Redf.). Head, natural size.
Fr, frontal; Pa, parietal; S.t, supratemporal; Sq, squamosal; P.or,
postorbital; Op, operculum; P.op, preoperculum; J. oD interoperctl-
lum; S.op, suboperculum.
2. Seminonotus agassizit (W. C. Redf.). Lower flank scale, showing ar-
ticular process or “peg,” natural size.
3. Semionotus sp. Lower flank scales, showing double articula-
tions o/s:
4. Semionotus sp. Premaxille, natural size.
“ 5. Semionotus ovatus (W. C. Redf.). Dorsal fin, twice natural size.

All the figures of this plate are reproduced after Eaton, loc cit., (1903).

(108)

CANIS, U0,

[PLATE Iv) |
Semionotus ovatus (Redf.), X

rat nd é

Small-sized, somewhat distorted individual from Boo t
Geological Collection. 6 ae apa

LEVEE, IW

SN OS

ity ear

oe thai
ey oa

“
_
me hi

= ; one
fahalg WA

yy ¥
Wal hare

nec

PATE Vi
Semionotus ovatus (Redf.). Natural size.

Imperfect specimen from the Newark series of Boonton, showing char-
acters of the median fins. State Geological Collection.

(112)

CAMS, WY

*

aie

r
x

are

gry ae cet

PLATE VI. ;
* Senvionotus ovatus (Redf.). Natural

Young individual, apparently belonging to this spec
which the name “/sctypterus beardmorei’”’ has been ap ib
Boonton, N. J. Original belonging to the State Geological

(114)

LAN, WAL

SEMIONOLTUS ovATUS (Redf.).

Immature example,

Liieyt
ak

oie

1 OY -N bel Dal
Semionotus agassiziu (Redf.). Natural size.
Nearly perfect fish from the Newark series of Sunderland, Massachusetts,
determined by Professor Newberry as belonging to this species. An outline

figure of the same specimen is shown of one-half the natural size in Plate I.
Original preserved in the American Museum of Natural History in New York.

(116)

PLATE VII.

Semionotus AGAssizir (Redf.), * 1/1. Sunderland, Mass.

aa i

+

=

ars

PLATE VIII.
Semionotus agassizii (Redf.). Natural size.
Photographic reproduction of a specimen from the same locality as the last, _

and, like it, belonging to the American Museum of Natural History in New |
York. Dorsal contour and ridge-scales well displayed. 4

(118)

~~

Mass.

and,

under]

Ss

ae

2)

ssizu (R

PIVAGIEDxe
Semionotus fultus (Agassiz). Natural size.
Photographic reproduction of the original specimen figured in Plate VI,

Fig. 2, of Newberry’s Monograph (1888), now preserved in the American
Museum of Natural History in New York. (Cat. No. 602G). Boonton, N. I

one

(120)

JPL, IDS

SrMIonotus ruLitus (Ag.), X 1/1.

Original figured by Newberry.

ae j
os

ci

hi

Nt ws
BI Uh vin as
mere

Ay =

a

PVA Exe
Semionotus lineatus (Newb.) x ‘Pox
~ Imperfect specimen displaying characters of ‘ine dorsal a anal,

showing ossified ribs. Newark series; Boonton, N. Bie Or iginal bel
the State erloniee Collection. ¢ Ne

Smmrionotus tannatus (Newb.), X 8/10.

notched dorsal igo seals: Nee series; ‘Boonton, N. oe ro) ig.
ing to the State Geological Collection.

(124)

“
»

le

BIg AMI

e
ee

Perse Noa

rani

PLATE XII.

Semionotus elegans (Newb.). Natural size.

Photographic reproduction of the original specimen figured in
Fig. 1, of Newberry’s Monograph (1888), now preserved in th
Museum of Natural History in New York. (Cat. No.
series; Boonton, N. J. :

IPAS, SOL

SHMIONOTUS THLNGANS (Newhb.). Natural size,

PLATE XIII.
Catopterus gracilis (Redf.). Natural size
Specimen of less than the average size, but with well

from the Connecticut Valley Trias. Original belonging ‘to tl
Comparative: Zodlogy, at Cambridge, Massachusetts.

(128)

AAG exes

PLATE XIV.

Examples of Semionotus showing effects of mechanical defor:
of them being compressed, and the other elongated, by a force

single direction. Newark series; Boonton, N. J. Original belonging
Geological Collection.

(130)

PYDO TAL

POTUT

9 poyoysip ATP

S
Ss
oO

wn

2)

coal
gp!

&

S

Loon)

(Ss)

Zz

gS

ars

(s

ww