Nearly complete specimen showing head and pectoral fin but lacking the caudal area

Atthey, T. (1875 & 1877a) described his new species Palaeoniscus hancocki from numerous specimens collected from Newsham, Cramlington and Kenton which he did not figure. Traquair, R.H. (1910 , p.148) stated that the type specimens were collected and described by the late Mr. Thomas Atthey, and were in the museum of the Natural History Society, Newcastle. He acknowledged the loan of these specimens for the purposes of his work on Rhandinichthys hancocki, and figured two specimens from Atthey's type material (NEWHM:G060.11 and NEWHM:G060.12). These could therefore be considered as Syntypes.

Rear portion of fish showing dorsal, pelvic and anal fins

Rear of body showing pectoral, pelvic and caudal fins

A label identifies this specimen as part of the type material of Acrolepis kirkbyi, but the specimen does not match the description given by Howse (1878, pp.171-173) in his type description of this species.

Fish lacking front of head and the caudal fin

A label identifies this specimen as part of the type material of Acrolepis kirkbyi, but the specimen does not match the description given by Howse (1878, pp.171-173) in his type description of this species.

Head & frontal portion of fish

Jaw

Whole fish

Traquair, R H. (1877-1914) only figured the head of this specimen.

Whole fish

Haubold, H. & Schaumberg, G. (1985, p. 141) give Palaeoniscus longissimus as a synonym of Palaeoniscum freieslebeni although previously, Traquair (1877, p.557) included Palaeoniscus longissimus as a synonym of Palaeoniscus freieslebeni.

Whole fish

Haubold, H. & Schaumberg, G. (1985, p.141) give Palaeoniscum elegans as a synonym of Palaeonsicum freieslebeni.

Whole fish

Maxilla

A label associates this specimen with that figured by Hancock and Atthey although there are some discrepancies between the specimen and the figure.

Whole fish

This specimen has a label associating it with the type description given by Young (1866). Young (1866) stated that the genus Amphicentrum was founded on a large number of specimens, all from the North Staffordshire coalfield. Although this specimen was neither figured or specifically cited it seems most likely that it was one of those used by Young in his type description of Amphicentrum granulosum, although this cannot be confirmed. There is reference to Young's (1866) original description in Woodward (1891) and Traquair (1875, 1878, 1880).

Rear of fish showing caudal fin

Fragment

Amphicentrum is synonymous with Cheirodus and Chirodus. Hancock & Atthey (1872a & d) described this species from "seven or eight specimens" none of which they figured. This specimen has an associated label linking it with Hancock & Atthey's type description, and on this basis could be considered as a Syntype. However, this link cannot be proved.

Forked dental plate

Forked dental plate

Whole fish

Whole fish

Whole fish

Specimen stolen in 1986.

NEWHM:G026.46	Figured

Whole fish

Whole fish

Originally described as the Holotype of Palaeoniscus latus n. sp. (Kirkby, 1862). Kirkby (1864, p.356) at the suggestion of Sir Philip Egerton, adopted the term altus for this species, latus having been already applied to another species of Palaeoniscus.Traquair (1877) attributed the species to his new genus Acentrophorus.

Whole fish

Originally described as the Holotype of Palaeoniscus varians (Kirkby, 1862). Traquair (1877) attributed the species to the new genus Acentrophorus.

Whole fish

Originally described as the Holotype of Palaeoniscus abbsii (Kirkby, 1862). Traquair (1877) attributed the species to the new genus Acentrophorus. Gill (1923, p.24, Text Fig.14) noted that "close examination of the two or three examples (of Acentrophorus abbsii) in Kirkby's collection seem to show that they are no more than distorted specimens of Acentrophorus varians".

Whole fish

Tooth

Romer, A.S. (1974, p.361) suggested that Dendrodus & Holoptychius are synonomous and Holoptychius takes priority. Carroll (1988) lists Holoptychius as a synonym of Holoptychus.

Crushed ethmoid region

Isolated cleithrum with crushed scapulocoracoid

Premaxilla

Portion of skull, anterior aspect

Crushed ethmoid region

There are some discrepancies between this specimen and the figure.

Crushed otic region

Specimen appears to be missing.

Snout Region

Crushed head

Small individual

Birks, S.G. (1913, p.308) noted that "It seems quite possible that this species may eventually be shown to be the young of Megalichthys hibberti".

Isolated first dorsal fin radial

Cleithrum

Cleithrum

Cleithrum

Vertebrae

Clavicle

Opercular plate

Pterygoid

Section of jaw containing two teeth

Fragment of jaw containing three teeth

Two bones and a scale

Teeth

Right cleithrum and clavicle.

Specimen not located during current survey.

Right humerus

Crushed Clavicle

Crushed Clavicle

Crushed Clavicle

Crushed clavicle

Crushed humerus

Crushed scapulocoracoid

Postparietal

Specimen not located during current surrey

Incomplete postparietal

Specimen not located during current surrey

Tooth

Humerus

Humerus

Humerus

Humerus

Cleithrum

Cleithrum

Specimen not located during current surrey

Cleithrum

Cleithrum

Humerus

Humerus

Humerus

Humerus

Humerus

Humerus

Humerus

Humerus

Humerus

Humerus

Isolated fin support

Fin support probably composed of median radial elements

Isolated fin support

Isolated fin support

Isolated fin support

Isolated fin support

Specimen not located during current survey

Isolated fin support

Specimen not located during current survey

Isolated fin support

Specimen not located during current survey

Flattened cleithrum

Crushed clavicle

Flattened cleithrum

Flattened cleithrum

Premaxilla with teeth

The specimen is identified as Strepsodus sp. on a label, but it is unclear who gave this identification.

Fragment of jaw with four teeth

The specimen is identified as Strepsodus sp. on a label, but it is unclear who gave this identification.

Shoulder girdle

Part of the postcranial skeleton including pelvic fin

Premaxilla

Premaxilla

Six teeth

Fragment of jaw with teeth

Barkas (1873, p.43) noted that similarities existed between this specimen and Rhizodopsis. The specimen is identified as Rhizodopsis on a label, but no authority is given for this identification.

Pterygoquadrate complex

Maxilla

Skull, part and counterpart

Atthey (1868) and Hancock and Atthey (1869b) described the species Ctenodus elegans from sixteen specimens from their collection, none of which were figured. This specimen (NEWHM:G061.03a) is noted as the type of Ctenodus elegans on an associated label an and illustration.

Ctenodus elegans Hancock & Atthey	Atthey, T. (1868), p. 86
	Hancock, A. & Atthey, T. (1869b), pp. 64-65
	Howse, R. (1889), p. 46
Sagenodus inaequalis Owen	Woodward, A.S. (1891), p. 256

Right upper toothplate

On the basis of the description given by Atthey (1868) and Hancock & Atthey (1869c), this specimen is the Holotype of Ctenodus imbricatus, although this cannot be confirmed. In their description, Atthey (1868), and Hancock & Atthey (1869c) note the existence of six or seven specimens of this new species.

Toothplate

Toothplate

Woodward (1891, pp.256-257) noted that Ctenodus elegans is synonomous with Sagenodus inaequalis.

Toothplate

Left pterygo-palatine bone with dental plate

Right angular and splenial with tooth

Atthey (1875, 1877a) figured a somewhat reconstructed version of this specimen and thus differences between the figure and the specimen exist.

Left cleithrum with rib and two vomerine teeth

Only one ttoth was figured by Atthey (1875, 1877a).

Right ramus with dental plate

Right lower toothplate

Hancock and Atthey (1871d and 1872c, Pl.XIII, Fig.1) depicted a figure showing both lower toothplates.

Toothplate

Barkas, T.P. (1873, Fig.89) noted that this specimen was the only known example of the species Ctenodus ovatus at the time. Since previously, Barkas, T.P. (1869c) was the first to describe this species (Ctenodus ovatus n. sp., Derbyshire Coal-field) from a single specimen, it is prabable that NEWHM:G040.95 is therefore the type specimen. An old label also associates the specimen with the type description given by Barkas (1869c).

Abraded upper toothplate

Barkas (1873) noted that Ctenodus concavus resembled Ctenodus tuberculatus but was named concavus because of its extreme concavity.

Large opercular plate

Scale

In their description of Ctenodus scales, Hancock & Atthey (1872a & 1872d) describe this specimen as "the second species". Their figure appears to be a mirror image of the specimen.

Scales

In their description of Ctenodus scales, Hancock & Atthey (1872a & 1872d) describe this specimen as "the third species".

Class:Incertae Sedis Acanthodii

Class:Amphibia