106 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [1883. 



The extremital teeth of both series are smaller than the great 

 majority, which are of equal size and similar form. Those of the 

 superior series are rod-like, narrowed at the extremities, and flat- 

 tened on one side. The edges of the cementum-plate are not 

 serrate, and the other faces of the tooth are finely rugose with 

 cementum-granules. In the inferior series, the cementum-faces 

 are diamond-shaped, and the tooth may thus be distinguished into 

 crown and root. The concealed surfaces are finely rugose ;• the 

 edges of the cementum-plate are not serrate, and its surface is 

 smooth. As compared with the Hadrosaurus foulkei^ the dental 

 magazine is much deeper, and contains a greater number of teeth 

 in a vertical column, and probably a larger number in the aggre- 

 gate. I find in each maxillary bone of the Diclonius mirahilis 

 six hundred and thirty teeth, and in each splenial bone four hun- 

 dred and six teeth. The total number is then two thousand and 

 seventy-two. 



According to Mr. Wortman, who, with Mr. Hill, dug the skeleton 

 out, its total length is thirty-eight feet. The leugth of the skull 

 is 1-180 meters. 



Restoration. — This animal in life presented the kangaroo-like 

 proportions ascribed by Leidy to the Hadrosaurus foulkei. The 

 anterior limbs are small, and were doubtless used occasionally for 

 support, and rarely for prehension. This is to be supposed from 

 the fact that the ungual phalanges of the manus are hoof-like, 

 and not claw-like, though less ungulate in their character 

 than those of the posterior foot. The inferior presentation of the 

 occipital condyle shows that the head was borne on the summit of 

 a vertical neck, and at right-angles to it, in the manner of a bird. 

 The head would be poised at right-angles to the neck when the 

 animal rested on the anterior feet, by the aid of a TT-like flexure of 

 the cervical vertebrae. The general appeai'ance of the head must 

 have been much like that of a bird. 



The nature of the beak and the dentition indicate, for this 

 strange animal, a diet of soft vegetable matter. It could not have 

 eaten the branches of trees, since any pressure suflBcient for their 

 comminution would have probably broken the slightlj^ attached 

 teeth of the lower jaw from their places, and have scattered 

 them on the floor of the mouth. It is ditficult to understand also 

 how such a weak spatulate beak, could have collected or have 

 broken off boughs of trees. By the aid of its dentate horny edge 



