﻿REPTILE 
  FOSSIL 
  SKELETONS 
  — 
  GILMORB 
  197 
  

  

  (lilia 
  by 
  Dr. 
  C. 
  C. 
  Mook, 
  this 
  specimen 
  is 
  provisionally 
  identified 
  as 
  

   portaiuin*]: 
  to 
  the 
  species 
  Croc(x!ih!.<t 
  claris 
  Cope. 
  ITay 
  * 
  recoo7iizes 
  10 
  

   species 
  of 
  (\ocodibt'i 
  from 
  the 
  Bridger 
  formation 
  alone, 
  but 
  a 
  thorough 
  

   revision 
  would 
  doubtless 
  greatly 
  reduce 
  this 
  list. 
  

  

  The 
  mounted 
  skeleton 
  has 
  been 
  given 
  a 
  defiant 
  attitude 
  (see 
  pi. 
  13) 
  

   with 
  the 
  jaws 
  agape 
  in 
  order 
  better 
  to 
  display 
  the 
  mouthful 
  of 
  teeth. 
  

   The 
  pose 
  and 
  style 
  of 
  mount 
  adopted 
  were 
  largely 
  determined 
  by 
  the 
  

   character 
  of 
  the 
  skeleton. 
  Because 
  of 
  the 
  extreme 
  hardness 
  and 
  

   brittleness 
  of 
  the 
  fossilized 
  bone, 
  it 
  was 
  found 
  impractical 
  to 
  drill 
  

   the 
  bones 
  for 
  secm'hig 
  them 
  to 
  metal 
  supports, 
  and 
  so 
  Mr. 
  Boss 
  

   worked 
  out 
  a 
  scheme 
  of 
  half 
  relief 
  and 
  half 
  free 
  mount 
  that 
  overcame 
  

   this 
  difficulty 
  an<l 
  gives 
  pleasing 
  results, 
  as 
  is 
  clearly 
  shown 
  in 
  plates 
  

   12 
  and 
  lo. 
  

  

  The 
  skidl 
  and 
  lower 
  jaws 
  are 
  unusualty 
  complete 
  and 
  only 
  slightly 
  

   distorted 
  by 
  crushing. 
  

  

  In 
  the 
  upper 
  and 
  lower 
  mandibles 
  there 
  are 
  alveoli 
  for 
  76 
  teeth, 
  

   premaxillaries 
  10, 
  maxillaries 
  30, 
  and 
  dentaries 
  36. 
  Of 
  this 
  dental 
  

   series 
  29 
  teeth 
  were 
  found 
  in 
  place; 
  enumerated 
  from 
  the 
  front 
  these 
  

   were 
  distributed 
  as 
  follows: 
  Second 
  of 
  the 
  right 
  premaxillary, 
  a 
  germ 
  

   tooth, 
  and 
  fourth 
  of 
  the 
  left 
  premaxillary; 
  hi 
  the 
  right 
  maxillary 
  the 
  

   fifth, 
  nintli, 
  tenth, 
  and 
  eleventh, 
  none 
  in 
  the 
  left 
  maxillary; 
  in 
  the 
  

   left 
  dentaiy 
  the 
  first, 
  fourth, 
  fifth, 
  sixth, 
  seventh, 
  (germ 
  tooth), 
  eighth 
  

   (gemi 
  tooth), 
  ninth 
  (germ 
  tooth), 
  tenth, 
  and 
  eleventh; 
  in 
  the 
  right 
  

   ramus 
  the 
  first, 
  second, 
  thii'd, 
  fourth, 
  fifth, 
  sixth, 
  seventh, 
  eighth 
  

   (germ 
  tooth), 
  twelfth, 
  thirteenth, 
  fifteenth, 
  sixteenth, 
  seventeenth, 
  

   and 
  eighteenth 
  (the 
  last 
  four 
  being 
  germ 
  teeth). 
  

  

  The 
  other 
  teeth, 
  some 
  39 
  in 
  all, 
  were 
  found 
  loose 
  in 
  the 
  matrix 
  

   surrounding 
  the 
  skull, 
  and 
  these 
  have 
  been 
  arldtrarily 
  inserted 
  in 
  the 
  

   jaws. 
  Thus 
  of 
  the 
  76 
  teeth 
  forming 
  the 
  complete 
  dental 
  series, 
  

   original 
  tooth 
  crowns 
  of 
  69 
  are 
  preserved. 
  

  

  In 
  Crocodilus, 
  according 
  to 
  Mook,^ 
  all 
  the 
  living 
  species 
  of 
  the 
  genus 
  

   have 
  17 
  to 
  19 
  toclh 
  in 
  the 
  upper 
  sei-ios 
  and 
  oidy 
  15 
  in 
  the 
  lower, 
  or 
  a 
  

   maximum 
  total 
  of 
  68 
  teeth 
  in 
  the 
  mouth 
  as 
  contrasted 
  with 
  76 
  in 
  the 
  

   extinct 
  species. 
  Of 
  4 
  other 
  skulls 
  fr<jiii 
  the 
  Bridger 
  in 
  the 
  National 
  

   Museum's 
  collections 
  none 
  shows 
  less 
  than 
  36 
  in 
  the 
  lower 
  dental 
  

   series, 
  and 
  it 
  is 
  evident 
  that 
  the 
  greater 
  number 
  of 
  teelh 
  constitutes 
  an 
  

   important 
  feature 
  for 
  distingui.shing 
  the 
  extinct 
  Kocene 
  forms 
  fr(»ni 
  

   \]\(' 
  extant 
  member.^ 
  of 
  the 
  genus. 
  It 
  also 
  raises 
  the 
  question 
  of 
  the 
  

   propriety 
  of 
  referring 
  these 
  Eocene 
  crocodiles 
  to 
  the 
  genus 
  (Vorodllus. 
  

   That 
  , 
  however, 
  is 
  outside 
  the 
  scope 
  of 
  the 
  present 
  paper, 
  and 
  no 
  doubt 
  

   will 
  be 
  fully 
  considered 
  by 
  Mook 
  in 
  (he 
  ronrse 
  of 
  his 
  monogrHi)lii(; 
  

   study 
  of 
  the 
  order. 
  

  

  > 
  l\ny, 
  f). 
  I'., 
  UiMlogrftphy 
  onil 
  catolfiRiio 
  of 
  ffissll 
  vcrU'l)rnt<'s. 
  Cnni'-rli' 
  Itist. 
  \\'ir 
  liliirti.n 
  V\ih]. 
  sr*), 
  

   pp. 
  .■il2-.M3, 
  1928. 
  

   • 
  .Vlwjk. 
  C. 
  C. 
  Hull. 
  Amcr. 
  Mus. 
  Nat. 
  ITIsl., 
  vol. 
  ii. 
  p. 
  I.M. 
  1021. 
  

  

  