South African Fossil Reptiles and Amphibia. 147 



processes to plane of back of pineal foramen ; preparietal small and 

 narrow. Interorbital width three times the intertemporal width. 



Type in the American Museum of Natural History. 



Locality. Bethulie, O.F.S. 



Horizon. Lower Beaufort Beds. (Top of Cistecephalug zone.) 



DlCYNODON LISSOPS, Bl\ 



1913. Broom. Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., xxxiii, p. 450 ; fig. 11. 



Skull of medium size. Comparable with D. lacerticeps. Eye wholly 

 in anterior half of skull. Nostril fairly large, well forward. Large 

 septomaxillary which just appears on face. Snout rounded and 

 smooth. Frontals pass well forward. Interorbital width : intertem- 

 poral width : : 5 : 3. Prefrontal large. Preparietal large. Postorbitals 

 nearly meet on parietal bar. Postfroutal very narrow^ 



Type in the American Museum of Natural History. 



Locality. Wilgebosch, New Bethesda, Graaff Eeinet, C.P. 



Horizon. Lower Beaufort Beds. (Cistecephalus zone.) 



DlCYNODON MOSCHOPS, Br. 



1913. Broom. Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., xxxii, p. 447 ; figs. 7-8. 

 1915. Broom. Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist,, xxv, 2 ; fig. 23. 



Skull of medium size, almost as wide as long. Snout broad, 

 markedly bent near front of frontal. Nostrils small, roofed by marked 

 projection of nasal. Septomaxilla appears on face, joining with 

 lachrymal and separating nasal from maxilla. Frontals broad. Post- 

 frontals almost entirely hidden. Preparietal small. Pineal foramen 

 large, broader than long. luterparietal large, forming considerable 

 part of upper surface of skull. 



Type in American Museum of Natural History. 



Locality. Oudeberg, Graaff Keinet, C.P. 



Horizon. Lower Beaufort Beds. (Gistecephalus zone.) 



DlCYNODON MTJSTOI, Htn. 



1915. Haughtou. Ann. S A. Mus., xii, 2, p. 58 ; pi. xi, fig. 1. 



This form, although at first sight somewhat similar to D. kolbei, 

 differs sufficiently to retain separate specific rank. In the original 

 description given, it was considered that the preparietals of the two 

 forms were very distinct ; but although the revelation of the true 

 structure of the extent of the bone in D. Icolbei removes this point of 



