120 FOSSIL TURTLES OF NORTH AMERICA. 
Cope described a specimen from Barnesboro (Ext. Batr., Rept., etc., p. 161) which is 
important because on it he based the distinction between his Taphrosphys and Prochonias. 
The specimen is No. 1477 of the American Museum. Cope states that this specimen exhibits 
an azygous bone in contact with the caudal marginal. As a matter of fact, all the species 
possess such a bone, the suprapygal, but Cope evidently meant a bone still in front of this. 
He states that this appeared to be the co-ossifed proximal portions of the last pair of costals 
and that the fragment appeared to be bounded posteriorly by a continuous suture. A close 
examination of the region in question shows that it is identical in structure with the same 
region in J. sulcatus. A figure of the fragment is presented (fig. 120). The costals of the 
eighth pair meet in the midline, as usual. Behind them there is the anterior end of the 
suprapygal. Cope overlookt the sutures between the suprapygal and the eighth costals and 
the suture between the contiguous ends of the costals just mentioned. hee xiphiplastron is 
present and shows the Features described by Cope. The epiplastron lacks the outer end. On 
the free border, at a distance of 48 mm. from the symphysis, begins the gulo-humeral sulcus, as 
in the figure of the type. There appears to be no sulcus nearer the symphysis. Furthermore, no 
sulcus is seen running in front of the suture with the hyoplastron and toward the opposite side. 
Cope described a variety enodis of this species. The specimen on which this was based has 
not been seen by the present writer. According to Cope’s description the free border of the 
hypoplastron was of equal thickness and equally obtuse, differing thus from the typical speci- 
mens of J. molops. Also the free margin of the hyoplastral was comprest and acute. It may 
be a distinct species. 
Taphrosphys dares sp. nov. 
Figs. 121-124. 
No. 1127 of the American Museum of Natural History belongs to portions of a fossil 
turtle which is a part of the Cope collection of fossil reptiles. No label came with the speci- 
men to tell what was its origin. The matrix adhering to the bones shows that the fossil did not 
come from the greensand of New Jersey. It consists of a yellowish or reddish sand in which 
are small flakes of mica. In his monograph of 1869 and 1870 Cope states, on page 167, that 
he had received some portions of a Taphrosphys from North Carolina, but the brief descrip- 
tion given by him does not agree sufficiently with the specimens here numbered 1127. Cope 
had Aico seen specimens of what he regarded as T. strenuus from Georgia, and it appears proba- 
ble that these are the ones. Further attention is given this matter below. It had evidently been 
Cope’s intention to describe and figure these bones for he has indicated on them that they were 
to be numbered 1, 2, 3, and 4. 
Wherever these bones were found, it is quite certain that they belong to a species hitherto 
undescribed, and were from the Upper Cretaeeous. The lot presents the distal end of a fifth 
costal, probably the right, most of a right peripheral, the seventh or the eighth, the entoplastron, 
a large portion of the left xiphiplastron, and a fragment of the right xiphiplastron. 
The fragment of costal has a length of 180 mm. and a edit of 85 mm. One border has 
a thickness of 11 mm.; the other, of 16 mm. The thicker sutural border presents a sort of 
tongue, the middle layer of the bone projecting beyond the outer and the inner. The thinner 
sutural border has the outer and the inner layers projecting beyond the middle, so that the edge 
is grooved. ‘The sutures between the costals seem therefore to have formed what carpenters 
call a tongue-and-groove joint. At the distal end of the costal, on the thicker side, is a rough 
surface which indicates that the costal was slightly overlapt by one of the peripherals. 
The upper surface of this bone is smooth, but it is markt by a coarse network of shallow 
and thread-like grooves. 
On the inferior side of this costal, nearer the thicker side, is a pit for the reception of the 
inguinal buttress of the plastron. This pit is excavated in the summit of a ridge, the rib proper. 
The pit has a length of 60 mm. and a width of 23 mm. Its upper end is placed 105 mm. 
above the lower border of the costal. Below it is a rough surface which probably joined a 
portion of the buttress. Altogether it appears that this costal belonged to the right side; in 
which case the thicker border was the hinder one. 
The peripheral, the seventh or the eighth of the right side, is massive (fig. 121). Unfor- 
tunately the free border is everywhere broken away, so that we can not be certain whether it 
