be suborbitals. The preopercular is narrow and overlapped by the suborbitals. The opercular is broad, but the division between it and the subopercular cannot be made out. A number of branchiostegal rays can be seen.

The dorsal fin is composed of apparently 16 rays with a few very small fulcra in front. The anal fin has at least 11 rays. The pectoral fin is badly preserved in both specimens, but the pelvic is well seen in the type. It has at least 6 rays, and there is a series of well-developed fulcra in front. The caudal fin is bifurcate but not deeply, and is nearly homocercal. It is formed of about 21 rays, and there are a number of small fulcra at least in front of the lower lobe.

The scales are in about 37 series and about 10 rows. The middle 3 rows in the front two-thirds of the body are roughly about twice as deep as the others, and these scales are distinctly serrated behind with about 10 teeth. From these teeth feeble ridges run forward on the scales a short distance, but otherwise the scales are smooth. There is practically no ornamentation on the bones of the head.

CONCLUSION.

With the exception of Seminotus capensis, which is believed to be of Stormberg Age, all the fishes here described belong to Upper Beaufort beds. The fishes collected by Dr. Kannemeyer and Mr. Brown are pretty certainly all of one horizon, and form one of the most interesting collections of fossil fish ever obtained. The Upper Beaufort beds with little doubt correspond to the Keuper of Europe. A species of Cyclotosaurus occurs at Rouxville, and a species of Capitosaurus at Burghersdorp, and there are many other facts which seem to confirm this determination of the age.

A comparison of this Karroo collection of fishes with those of the Hawkesbury of Australia is very interesting. In both faunas we have the genera Dictyopyge, Cleithrolepis, and Pholidophorus, and possibly when the Australian and African beds are more fully explored other common genera may be found. The Australian Palæoniscid genus Myriolepis may be regarded as the representative of the South African Oxygnathus. Still, in spite of the resemblances, the differences between the two faunas is more striking. In the Hawkesbury beds Belonorhynchus and Pristisomus are very prominent genera, yet quite unknown in the Karroo beds. On the other hand, the two most prominent genera in the South African beds-Hybodus and Helichthys are unknown in the Australian

beds.

Ann. S. Afr. Mus. Vol. VII.

2.

1.

3.

5

R. Broom del.

Fig.1 & 2. Hybodus Africanus. Fig. 4. Ceratodus ornatus.

Ann. S.Afr Mus. Vol. VII.

Fig.6. Helichthys Draperi.

Fig. 7. Helichthys Browni.

Fig. 8. Oxygnathus Browni. Fig. 9. Cleithrolepis Minor. Fig.10. Pholidophorus Browni.