It has been already stated that the portion of the meteorite used for analysis was that obtained by filing the exposed faces of its halves; it might therefore be objected, that the material so procured, at least from the harder portion, was likely to be mixed with particles of the file used, and especially that the percentage of the carbon in the meteorite might thereby come out too high. It certainly cannot be denied that minute particles of the substance of the file would mix with the filings; but from the texture of the mass these must have been but a very trifling proportion, compared to the bulk of the filings. To be certain, however, that no substantial error had crept in from this source, another determination of the carbon and silica was made on a solid piece of the meteorite, the result being to show the presence of these constituents in the following proportions :

These new percentages being so close to the last, we may regard the first analysis as quite correct.]

III. On Professor M'Coy's Ray without a name, taken in the Firth of Forth, May 1861. By WILLIAM S. YOUNG, Esq. (The Specimen was exhibited.)

After carefully examining several authorities, I have come to the conclusion, that this ray is the same as one described, but not named, by Professor M'Coy, in the "Annals of Natural History,” vol. vi. p. 405, and which Yarrell, quoting Thomson, places under the species of Sandy or Cuckoo Ray. Couch, in his work on the "History of the Fishes of the British Islands," now coming through the press, arranges them as two distinct species, and neither description coincides with the specimen now before us.

The specimen M'Coy got in Dublin bay was considerably larger than this one, being 17 to 18 inches long, and 9 to 10 inches broad. He says its outline,-the semicircle of spines or inner margin of the eye, and the spines at the tip of the snout, are the same as in the Sandy Ray; and that it resembles the Sand or Homelyn Ray, in having one spot on

each pectoral,—that is, a circular spot of chocolate brown, surrounded by a circle of white irregular spots, and some irregular white markings in centre, instead of the numerous small white markings of the Sandy Ray. It differs from the Sandy Ray, in having the surface of the body covered with minute spines, directed backwards,-the Sandy Ray being smooth, although Yarrell describes it as covered with spines. This specimen also differs from the Sandy Ray in its tail being long, whereas in the latter it is remarkably short; and, having the characteristic outline and disposition of the spines of the Sandy Ray, easily distinguishes it from the Sand or Homelyn Ray.

M'Coy thus gives the description of his fish, which so closely agrees with this specimen, that except in one or two minor particulars they appear to be the same species:

Spiracles immediately behind the orbits. Skin rough above, with the spines largest on the anterior margin of the pectorals. Semicircle of six or eight spines round the inner margin of the orbits, and a few on the top of the snout; four short rows about or a little before the middle of the back (these, I think, are the transverse rows forming the triangle at the upper extremity of the rows of large spines); two rows equally large spines down each side of the tail; four rows of large spines on the tail pointed backwards; central line comparatively unarmed; all the larger spines radiated at their base. Pectorals more abruptly rounded off than in the Sandy Ray. Colour uniform, light yellowish brown, the large oval spot containing variously shaped cream-coloured spots." Such is Professor M'Coy's description of this ray without a name.

The following is the description of the specimen now exhibited length 12 inches, breadth 64 inches; from the vent to the tip of the snout, 5 inches; from the same point to the tip of the tail, 7 inches (these proportions are very much the same as in M'Coy's ray); eyes large; spiracles immediately behind the orbits; skin rough above, thickly covered with spines, which are larger on the anterior margin of the pectorals, and all of which, even to the most minute, are radiated at the base. At the upper end of the central line is

an equilateral triangle of large spines, all turned backwards at an angle of about 50°, except the two large spines at the extremities of the base, which are nearly upright. From the base of this triangle down the back to the tail there are three rows of large spines, one on the central line, and one on each side of it; and outside of these are a considerable number of somewhat smaller spines irregularly placed. From the commencement of the tail to half-way to the tip there are three rows of spines on each side, the intermediate row being the smallest, and the only one continued to the extremity of the tail. The central line is armed with spines throughout its whole length. The under part of the tail is smooth, but at the margins thickly studded with a row of small spines. The whole of the large spines, with the exception before mentioned, are directed backwards, at an angle of about 50°. The spines on the central line are not so fully developed as those on each side of it, but still perfectly distinct. All the large spines are very much more radiated at the base than the smaller ones covering the back. The pectorals are very abruptly rounded off at the posterior extremity. The colour is light yellowish-brown, with two large chocolate-coloured spots, irregular in outline, containing a few (from three to five) cream-coloured markings. These large spots divide the breadth of the fish into three equal parts, a little way below the base of the triangle of spines.

This is therefore not a variety of any known species, but a new one. Professor M'Coy records his specimen as far back as the year 1841; and I beg to propose that this species be named Raia M'Coyii. This specimen was got in the month of May last year, in the well-known fishing-ground off Pittenweem called the Fluke Hole.

The Secretary stated that as several communications still remained to be brought before the Society, he begged to move that an extraordinary meeting be held on Wednesday, the 7th of May. The motion was unanimously agreed

to.

420

Wednesday, 7th May 1862.-JOHN COLDSTREAM, M.D., President, in the Chair.

The Secretary laid on the table new Parts of Vol. II. of the Proceedings of the Society, which he hoped would be ready for distribution to members in a few days.

The following donations to the Library were laid on the table, and thanks voted to the donors:

1. Description of a New Species of Clerodendron from Old Calabar, which flowered in 1861 in the Royal Botanic Garden of Edinburgh. (Plate.) By Professor J. H. Balfour, A.M., M.D., &c.-From the Author. 2. Proceedings of the Literary and Philosophical Society of Liverpool, No. 15, 1860 61.-From the Society. 3. Journal of the Geological Society of Dublin, Vol. viii. Part 3.-From the Society. 4. The Canadian Naturalist and Geologist, and Proceedings of the Natural History Society of Montreal, Vol. vi., No. 6, December 1861; and Vol. vii., No. 1, for February 1862. 5. The Canadian Journal, New Series. No. 37, January 1862.-From the Canadian Institute. 6. Proceedings of the Royal Society, Vol. xi., Nos. 43-47.—From the Society. 7. Observations and Experiments on the Carcinus manas. By W. Carmichael M'Intosh, M.D. Prize Thesis, 1860.-From the Author. 8. Transactions of the Botanical Society of Edinburgh, Vol. vii., Part 1. -From the Society.

The following communications were then read:—

I. Notes of the Capture of the Red Crested Whistling Duck (Fuligula rufina, Selby) in Argyleshire; and of the Common Wild Duck building on a Tree. By JOHN ALEXANDER SMITH, M.D.

Dr Smith read a communication from J. W. P. Orde of Kilmory, Esq., on the capture of a male of the Fuligula rufina, the Red-Crested Whistling Duck, which was shot in company with some Golden Eyes, on a fresh-water loch near Craignish, Argyleshire, in the month of January last. This bird is a rare occasional visitor to England, and was first noticed by Yarrell in 1826. Several specimens have since that time been observed in England, but none before this in Scotland. It is a bird of eastern Europe, emigrating southwards in autumn.

A note was also read from Richard Bell, Esq., of a wild duck's nest, with nine eggs, discovered in May 1861, amongst the small branches of a thorn tree, at eleven feet from the ground, and about forty yards from the river Esk; on the farm of Billholm, Dumfriesshire. The nest was compactly

built of birch twigs, and lined with down, and was apparently the work of the bird itself, and not the old one of any other bird. Instances of wild ducks occasionally using the nests of other birds, have been observed, and even at as great a height as thirty feet from the ground. In these instances, it is believed, the young birds are brought down to the ground by the bill of the mother.

II. Note on a case of Abnormality in the Ossification of the Parietal Bones in the Human Fœtus. By R. H. TRAQUair, M.D.

Some time ago I dissected the head of a human fœtus of between the eighth and ninth months, in which the parietal bones presented a condition apparently at variance with the well-known rule, that these bones are two in number, and each developed from a single ossific centre.

In this cranium the parietal bone of the left side is perfectly normal, being ossified from one centre, which corresponds with the well-marked parietal eminence.

On the right side, however, the part which represents the parietal bone is divided into two distinct pieces, in a line extending from the middle of its posterior margin obliquely forwards to a little above its anterior inferior angle. Of these two pieces, each of which is of course ossified from its own centre, the lower is accordingly somewhat triangular, and is equal in size to one-half the upper rudely quadrangular part; and the two pieces form together a double parietal bone, which is larger by about one-fourth than the single bone of the opposite side.

This cranium is therefore abnormal

1. In possessing three parietal bones instead of two.

2. In the asymmetrical disposition of these bones, two being on one side, one on the other.

3. The vault of the cranium is also asymmetrical in this respect, that the double parietal bone of the right side is considerably larger than the single one of the left.

The only other analogous case of which I am at present aware, is one recorded by Von Sömmering.* He has de

* Tiedemann und Treviranus Zeitschrift für Physiologie, ii. 1826.