I 



Ig rRO('ErJDI\(hS OF THE XATIONAL MUSEUM. vol.37. 



The left Imnieriis recalls in a striking way that of Tiiditanus longi- 

 pes Cope, and it was once entertained as a possibility that the present 

 form might be a member of that species, since the skull is lacking in 

 T. longipes. Sufficient specific differences were found, however, in 

 the ribs, which, in T. longipes, are very long, slightly curved, and 

 delicate, but which, in the present form, are comparatively heavy. 

 Other characters sufficiently diagnostic are found in the form assumed 

 b}^ the vertebra^ in the two forms. 



Mcusnroncnls of the ti/pe of 'l'iiilit(nti(s icjilcotti. 



mm 



Length of specimen 70 



Length of skull 20 



Width of skull, posterior 14 



Width of skull, anterior to orbits 10 



Length of orbit 4 



Width of orbit 2 



Interorbital width 3 



Length of clavicle 9 



Greatest width of clavicle 4 



Length of vertebral column, as preserved 50 



Length of a vertebra 1-'J^5« 



Width of a vertebra .50^ 



Width of body impression 15 Ij 



Length of humerus 6 I 



Median width of humerus . 50 j 



Width at end of humerus 2 ' 



Length of rib ^ 8 



Width of rib . 25 



This specimen was collected by Mr. R. D. Lacoe, of Pittston, Penn- 

 sylvania, from Linton, Ohio. 



A second individual (Plate G, fig. 2; Plate 7, fig. 2) of this species 

 {Tuditanus walcotti) is indicated by a rather poorly preserved 

 specimen on a slab of soft coal from the Linton mines. The following | 

 portions of the animal have been detected and will be discussed: 

 Partial imf)ression of the skull, with a fragment of a minute jaw, in 

 which are minute teeth; right clavicle; part of the impression of the 

 body; nearly entire left hind limb; impressions of about a dozen 

 vertebra^, very indistinct. 



The impression of the skull is distinct only in a favorable light, 

 and even then the boundaries of the cranium are a little uncertain. 

 For this reason no representation of the form will be attempted. 

 The sculpturing on the parietals is, however, distinct enough to show 

 relationship with the previously described specimen, and the form of 

 the body impression, the absence of abdominal scutes, the shape of the 

 clavicle and its sculpture, and the proportions of the hind limb al| 

 agree with the characters which have been assigned to the genus 

 Tuditanus. The fragment of the jaw is interesting as giving the first 

 information as to the character of the mandible in the genus Tudi- 



[' 



