332 KANSAS UNIVERSITY SCIENCE BULLETIN. 
edges of the interclavicle, or they may be branchial elements. 
They are distinctly curved, however, and probably represent 
portions of the interclavicle. A wax impression does not show 
a discrete structure, but the boundaries of some larger ele- 
ment. No other remains of the pectoral girdle can be dis- 
cerned. The humeri are short and relatively thick.. Wax im- 
pressions show them to have had truncate or slightly concave 
ends, thus indicating the absence or slight development of 
endochondrium. No other elements of the arm are preserved. 
The ventral armature is preserved in two small patches, 
and these show the chevron-shaped rods to have been very 
fine—much more delicate than in Micrerpeton. 
The body impression is very interesting, both as showing 
the form of the body and because in it are preserved the im- 
pressions of the larger portion of the alimentary canal. The 
form of the body can best be discerned by reference to the 
figures. (Plate 3, figs. 3, 4; plate 6, figs. 1, 2.) 
The portions of the alimentary canal preserved consist of 
the greater portion of the stomach, three coils or loops of the 
small intestine, the rectum, and a pit which undoubtedly repre- 
sents the anal opening. The anus is found at a distance of 
16 mm. from the tip of the tail, and is somewhat removed 
_from the body portion, as in modern salamanders. On each 
side of the posterior end of the rectum there occurs a pair of 
enlargements, which probably represent the oviducts at their 
posterior extremity. 
The tail impression is more acuminate than in Micrerpeton, 
but shows the same structures as that form, 7.e., the lateral 
lines, which have already been mentioned. Micrerpeton was a 
more rapid swimmer than the present form, on account of 
the greater development of the tail. The impression of an 
elongate femur and the heads of the tibia and fibula of the 
left side are preserved. 
The second specimen of the species (No. 802, Yale Museum) 
shows much the same characters as the specimen already de- 
scribed, except that there are preserved impressions of small, 
blunt teeth on the mandible. The two humeri and the femur 
of the left side are preserved, and the interclavicle is repre- 
sented by an identical impression as in the first described 
specimen. The tail impression, although similar in form, does 
not exhibit so much of the structure of the lateral lines. The 
