192 EDWARD L. RICH 
and a more highly developed posterior one (pr.maz.p.). As in 
Lacerta, the anterior process and the main body of the posterior 
process follow the palatal plate of the maxillary bone (figs. 1 and 
25), although not in contact with it. The posterior process also 
gives rise to a median branch, in the form of a slender rod of carti- 
lage (figs. 2 and 25, pr.max.p’.), which extends across from the max- 
illary bone to the palatine (fig. 25, os pal.), and then bends sharply 
to the posterior, lying for some distance in a conspicuous groove in 
the lateral surface of the palatine bone. In Lacerta Gaupp indi- 
cates the same structure, but in a degenerate or, possibly, un- 
developed condition— 
Nahe seinem hinteren Ende (i.e., of the processus maxillaris pos- 
terior) geht von ihm noch ein besonderes Quersttick medialwarts und 
schiebt sich auf das Os palatinum herauf und in der Verlingerung dieses 
Querstiickes finden sich noch einige variable kleine Knorpelinseln auf 
dem Os palatinum (Fig. 3). (’00, pp. 483 and 484.) 
Zwischen ihm (i.e., the processus maxillaris posterior) und dem hin- 
teren Ende der Cart. paraseptalis bilden sich vortibergehend auf der 
Dorsalfliche des Palatinum kleine Knorpelinseln, die wahrscheinlich 
Andeutungen dafiir sind, dass das Planum antorbitale mit seinem 
ventralen Rande friiher dem Palatinum aufruhte (Fig. 384). An ihrer 
Stelle wurde auch einmal ein mit der Cart. paraseptalis zusammen- 
hingender Knorpelfortsatz gefunden. (’05 b, p. 766.) 
There is nothing in Eumeces to suggest any such connection 
of this palatine extension of the processus maxillaris poste- 
rior with the paraseptal cartilage and the planum antorbitale. 
It seems more probable that the continuous rod of Eumeces 
and the cartilage fragments (‘Inseln’) figured by Gaupp 
belong to the maxillary process itself, which is homolo- 
gized as forming the anterior part of an originally continuous 
palato-pterygo-quadrate bar of cartilage (see also p. 199). Gaupp 
gives no figure of the ‘‘mit der. Cart. paraseptalis zusammen- 
hiingender Knorpelfortsatz;’” from the very brief description 
I am unable to estimate its significance in this connection. A 
similarly close relation of the posterior maxillary process with 
the maxillary and palatine bones is emphasized by Fuchs (’09) 
in Sphenodon and the Geckonidae; the presence of the process 
in Sphenodon was earlier recorded by Schauinsland (’00). 
Among the turtles it is present in Dermochelys (Nick, *12), but 
