the Ccelacanth Fish. 333 



The pvearticular of Macropoma corresponds exactly to that 

 bone in Megalicldhys', in both tliey form the greater part of 

 the inner surface of the jaw and in botli tliey meet at the 

 symphysis. 



The dentary of Ccelacanths is undoubtedly correctly 

 determined. 



The three little tooth-bearino- bones which rest on the 

 upper and lingual surfaces of tlie anterior ends of the pre- 

 {irticular and dentary are interpreted by Stensio as precoro- 

 noids. This view cannot be accepted; their relation to the 

 bones on which they rest are quite different to those held by 

 the precoronoids in (>steolepids and Tetrapods, and they are 

 much further forward than those bones ever are. 



They can, it seems to me, be most usefully inter[)reted as 

 new formatioiiSj formed by the fusion of teeth. They agree 

 with the little toutli-bearing plates which occur on the copula 

 in Macropoma and on the braneiiial arches in other Ccela- 

 canths, wliich are certaiidy neomorphs. 



The coronoid of Coelacantiis is certainly that bone, and 

 tlie angular, although incapable of certain determination, is 

 one of the tiiree posterior infradentaries. 



Palate. — The pterygoid of Coelacanthuft is extremely similar 

 in its relation to the pterygoid of Osteolepids and Labyrintho- 

 dontia, and is determined with certainty. 



The nietapterygoid, certainly an ossitication on the palato- 

 qiiadrate cartilage, is analogous and probably homologous 

 with the nietapterygoid. It agrees closel}' with one of the 

 continuous series of ossification which occurs in the cartilaiie 

 in Osteolepids and rather strikingly with the epipterygoid of 

 an Embolomeious Labyrinthodont which I am describing 

 shortly. 



There can be no doubt that the bay in its upper edge trans- 

 mitted the maxillary and mandibular divisions of the fifth 

 nerve, and that the ophthalmicus profundus passed out in 

 front of it. 



These relations, considered in connection with the absence 

 of any direct contact with the sphenoid, show that the 

 so-called basipterygoid is not necessarily that process. 



The i)alatine is considered by Stensio as an autopalatine — 

 a substitution-bone ; this view is founded presumably on the 

 fact that it does not support teeth directly. In Macropoma, 

 however, it has not the appearance of a cartilage-bone, and 

 the fact that the teeth are attached to a separate element does 

 not ))rovide conclusive evidence, because this bone is identical 

 in tyi)e with the tooth-bearing bones of the front of the lower 



