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



the base of the fang; in E. petrosus, well behind its base. 

 The drawings of E. ferox furnished by both Morton and 

 Emmons of this species represent the teeth only and are very 

 unsatisfactory. I find no reason for questioning the correct- 

 ness of Cope's identification of the tooth here figured as E. 

 ferox. E. ferox and E. pressidens Cope were both described 

 from the Cretaceous of New Jersey. 



Enchodus petrosus Cope. 



Enchodus petrosus Cope (E. D.), Bull. U. S. Geol. and Geog. Surv. 

 Terrs. I, No. 2, 1874, p. 44; Vert. Cret. Form. West, 1875, pp. 

 239, 278, pi. liv, figs. 4-7. — ? LooMis (F. B.), Palasontogr. XLVI, 



1900, p. 278, pi. xxvii, figs. 13-15. — Stewart (A.), Univ. Geol. 

 Surv. Kansas, VI, 1900, pi. Ixx, fig. 11. — Woodward (A. S.) , 

 Cat. Foss. Fishes, IV, 1901, p. 205. — Hay (O. P.), Bibliog. and 

 Cat. Foss. Vert. N. A. 1902, p. 389. 



Tetheodus pephredo Cope (E. D.), Bull. U. S. Geol. and Geog. Surv. I, 

 No. 2, 1874, p. 43; Vert. Cret. Form. West, 1875, pp. 237, 277, 

 pi. liv, figs. 1-3. — Woodward (A. S.), Cat. Foss. Fishes, IV, 



1901, p. 205. — Hay (O. p.), Bibliog. and Cat. Foss. Vert. N. A. 



1902, p. 389. 



Tetheodus pephero Loomis (F. B.), Palaeontogr. XLVI, 1900, p. 278 

 (syn. of Enchodus petrosus) . 



The present writer agrees with Dr. Loomis in referring 

 Cope's Tetheodus pephredo to Enchodus petrosus. The type of 

 this supposed species is in this Museum and has the number 

 .1605. Cope's description and figures are for the most part 

 correct. 



Prof. Cope states that in Tetheodus pephredo there is no sur- 

 face for the attachment of a tooth and no scar or other trace 

 of the former existence of one. However, a close examina- 

 tion of one of the palatine masses shows that there are traces, 

 faint but undeniable, of at least four fangs which at different 

 times have occupied the lower border of the bone. More- 

 over, where we would expect to find a functional fang, the 

 surface is somewhat rough; while on the oral border of the 

 bone there is a ragged area which looks as if some of the bone 

 had been broken away. All this makes it appear probable 

 that in some conflict both fangs had been torn away at their 



