I read this on another board today and thought it might be of interest here. It came with a picture of the dinosaur fish mentioned, but that doesn't seem to have copied. But you could look up Canowindra, at the Age of Fishes Museum.

[size=40]WELCOME TO THE AGE OF FISHES MUSEUM[/size]

Imagine a world ruled by fish! Long before dinosaurs roamed the Earth, the mighty rivers of the Central West teemed with bizarre ancient fishes - armoured fishes, fishes with lungs, and some huge predators with jaws like crocodiles. Thousands of their fossils were found at Canowindra and give us a unique glimpse into life during the Devonian Period - the 'Age of Fishes'.




The Museum


A chance discovery in 1955 revealed an extensive fossil bed dating from the Devonian Period. This 360-370 million year old fossil deposit contains the remains of thousands of freshwater fish. Many were new to science. The best of the fossils so far recovered are now on public display at Canowindra, at the Age of Fishes Museum.

This sounds interesting, Caro.  I'll see if I can find the Museum site.  I'm sure the finding of a coelacanth in 1938 (the coelacanth having been considered extinct previously) was discussed on ResHist at some time.

The museum's website is here:

Canowindra Age of Fishes Museum

... while their listing within the NSW Government's tourist site is here:

Visiting and Exploring NSW - the Age of Fishes Museum

It looks to be a very interesting geological collection which I hadn't heard of, so thanks for that.

But of course the paleontological pedant in me wants to point out that 'fish' is a completely unscientific name and that actually none of those fossil creatures are actually fishes: as a group the agnathan 'fishes' nearly all became extict shortly after at the end of the Devonian geologic period, and their few ancestral survivors still living today - lampreys and hagfish - whilst still aquatic, are not generally thought of as being 'proper' fish. I understand why the museum uses the term 'fish', based as it is on the commonly-used meaning of the word, however in evolutionary terms these creatures are no more fish than are salmon, sharks, squid, scallops, sturgeon or sperm whales ... or indeed apes, antelopes, aardvarks, amphibians, adders, asps, albatrosses and nearly all other living animals. However this is probably not the place to quibble about the use of non-scientific nomenclature, evolutionary trees, genetic distance, and in particular the science of cladistics. It's just that if one says that both a goldfish and a great white shark are fish, then genetically so too are a golden eagle and a great ape.

Pity it is so far away because it sounds like a good visit, Caro. As for it's name, it's fine by people like me, I have a fair understanding of what it might be about.

I find the entire business of labels can be a bit tedious, MM and down right dangerous when applied to types of  humans which makes me giddy to think of all the subdivisions  - I just don't like  nit picky labels. Whenever I have to fill in a form that asks me to define my self, I go to 'Other' at the end of the list and write 'Human Being.' A few years back, my local librarian said I could not write that - eh? What? So I said I would tell my mum and she come an sort her out......... I guess I was about 50 at the time. So the form went in and I was reregistered - the only Human being in the county, I suppose......... label me no labels......am I also a fish, MM?