32 Mr. H. G. Seeley on the Structure of 



in front of the nares ; from which circumstance the inference 

 may be made that the premaxillary bone did not extend far 

 backward, and formed the front of the nostril ; so that, with 

 the toothless maxillary forming the side border, the nasal 

 bones might well close it behind. The bone marked 7, 

 though named frontal in the text, would, from the number, 

 seem to be intended for the parietal ; it appears to me to cor- 

 respond in function, by making the upper border of the orbit, 

 with the frontal bone. The bone 8, evidently intended for 

 the supraoccipital, seems to me, both from the figure and a 

 cast of the original specimen, to be the entire side of the 

 cerebral region pressed flat. I should interpret it as con- 

 sisting of the parietal bone in the upper part, and of the 

 squamosal in the loAver part, which gives attachment to the 

 quadrate and malar bones. The little bone (23) just above 

 the proximal ends of the malar and quadrate, is probably 

 intended for the squamosal ; from the analogy of all other 

 Ornithosam'S and lizards, I should rather name it the post- 

 frontal. And with regard to the palatal bones, if they in any 

 way resemble those seen among birds and lizards, they must 

 certainly have a different naming from that detailed. I think 

 the bone 22, regarded as the palatine, would be better iden- 

 tified as the lachrymal. The triangular bones (25) may well 

 be the pterygoids, as Quenstedt names them. The angle of 

 the triangle at one end of the long side Avould meet the qua- 

 drate ; one of the short sides of the bone would unite mesially 

 with the similar side of the other pterygoid bone ; and both 

 "\AOuld have their other short sides looking backward, while 

 the angle at the other end of the long side would meet the 

 palatine bones in front. Considering the position of the latter 

 bones in birds and reptiles, I have no hesitation in identifying 

 the long slender bones marked 16 as the palatine bones. 

 The small bone (6) named sphenoid I should rather identify 

 as the right quadi-ato-jugal. 



This interpretation enables me to offer a restoration of the 

 Ornithosaurian palate (PI. II. fig. 8), which can only be recon- 

 stnicted on the basis of the bird's palate ; for the form and 

 relations of the pterygoid and palatine bones are very similar 

 to what is seen in many natatorial birds. 



It will be impossible, on comparing the figures, to discover 

 any character, in which the Ornithosaur cannot be paralleled 

 by birds, which would separate it as more than a different and 

 not distantly allied genus, both the forms and arrangement of 

 the bones being paralleled in many natatorial birds. Yet too 

 much stress must not be laid upon these important characters 

 in the way of affinity, because lizards also approximate to- 



