134 



to those of tlie preceding species; but all the bones are more massive, though 

 of the same dimensions. 



The teeth are strongly compressed with cutting-edge fore and aft, and 

 with the surfaces distinctly faceted; there are seventeen on the mandible. 

 The palatine bones are stouter than in C. tortor, but the teeth are not larger, 

 and are probably as numerous, as they are similarly spaced. 



The i)arietal is thicker than in C. tortor, and flat above. The decurved 

 lateral portions are short antero-posteriorly ; behind these, there is a promi- 

 nence on the inferior face, which is broken, but probably ends in the acute 

 median termination of the bone. The apex of an inferior V-shaped ridge is 

 ])reserved. The parts of the frontal preserved show the olfactory groove 

 nearly closed, and its division in front into two contiguous lateral grooves. 

 The middle of the upper surface is plane; its anterior part, with a low keel. 



The prefrontal is of peculiar form, and displays the greatest difference 

 from that of C. tortor. Instead of being a horizontal bone, it is so oblique 

 as to be nearly vertical. From this follows an alteration of the relation of all 

 the parts. The squamosal suture with the frontal, which is marked by pecul- 

 iar concentric rugosities in both species of this genus, instead of being on the 

 upper, is nearly on the under surface, though oblique to both. The lateral 

 margin is subinferior and plicate ; the crest of the inner side bounding the 

 maxillary projects far below it in front. In consequence of the form of the 

 bone, there is less expansion of the face in front of the orbits than in other 

 species of the order; whence the face is much narrower, and the name stenop!< 

 is appropriate. The portions of the prefrontal of the other side whicli are 

 preserved are similar to those described. Tiie characters of the suspensorium 

 are in the main as in C. tortor. 



The quadrates, hke those of the last species, have a very prominent 

 internal angle. They present various differences, which may be regarded as 

 only individual: for example, the edge of the great ala is not expanded 

 inward, but only outward; the distal articular extremity is wider; the poste- 

 riorly decurved hook is more contracted, forming a deeper internal concavity 

 behind the internal angle. The button on the posterior aspect of the hook 

 is wanting; its place being taken by a recurvature of the smooth articular 

 face along the margin. Characters of more importance are, the lack of 

 the two ridges which bound the posterior face of the distal end of the 

 bone, that face being thus convex instead of concave ; and the process below 



