66 Bulletin American Museum of Natural History. [Vol. XIX, 



front, like that of Enipo. Nevertheless, the narrowness may 

 be due to crushing, and cannot be relied on. The vertebrae 

 accompanying the jaw may be said to be identical with those 



Fig. 47. Oricardinus tortus Cope. No. 2114. X i. Type. 

 Dentary. jy';«, symphysis. 



Fig. 48. Same as Fig. 47. Shows tooth line. 



Fig 4g. ? Oricar- 

 dinus tort Its Cope. 

 No. 2114. X I. Two 

 caudal vertebrae, lat- 

 eral view. 



of Enipo in structure, and it is not improbable that they did 

 not belong to the individual that possessed the jaw. Two 

 caudal vertebrae are figured here of natural size (Fig. 49). 

 Until more is known about the species it seems best to retain 

 it in the genus Oricardinus , of which it is the type. 



ENCHODONTID^. 



Enchodus Agassiz. 



Remains of fishes of this genus are very common in collec- 

 tions made in the Cretaceous of Kansas, and they likewise 

 occur in collections made in New Jersey. Fourteen species 

 have been described from these two States and another, E. 

 shumardii, from South Dakota. The greater part of the species 

 have been based on detached teeth. The most conspicuous 

 bone of the skull and the one most likely to be preserved is 

 the greatly swollen palatine, bearing a long fang. This bone 

 was regarded by Cope as the premaxilla, and the pterygoid, 

 which articulates with it behind, was supposed to be the 

 maxilla. The correct interpretation was afforded by Dr. A. 

 S. Woodward (Proc. Geologists' Assoc, X, 1888, p. 315). 

 Dr. Loomis has more recently discussed the anatomy of the 

 genus, but in his restoration of the skull he has not repre- 

 sented the palatine as swollen nor drawn the boundary 

 between it and the ectopterygoid. He also describes the 



