Amphibian from the Coal-shale of Newsham. 61 
either side by a row of eight or ten stout close-set teeth, similar 
in all respects to the premaxillary teeth, even to the apical 
compression and striation; and they are nearly as large, if not 
quite as large, as they are. The posterior one, which is placed 
close in front of the palato-temporal foramen, is larger than 
the rest, and is certainly equal in size to the premaxillary 
eeth. 
The other or less perfect specimen of the skull has lost the 
whole of the right side; and the margin of the left side is much 
injured, and is doubled inwards. It is quite evident, however, 
that this specimen, when perfect, was quite as large as the one 
first described ; and the surface-ornamentation is of the same 
character. "The two principal coronal bones, the occipitals, and 
parietals are almost entire, and are of the same rectangular 
form. The parietal foramen is distinctly displayed, and in 
every respect agrees with that of the other example. The left 
outer horn is present, and shows no variation in character; the 
two inner horns and the right outer horn are broken awa 
The left premaxillary bone is pressed inwards, and agrees 
in size and position with that previously described. It has 
seven teeth, beautifully preserved, the exact number in the 
other specimen ; and, in fact, the preemaxillaries of the two in- 
dividuals are in every respect similar; only in that now before 
us the posterior pointed extremity is apparently hidden in the 
matrix. The greater portion of the vomer is preserved, and 
is studded, in the same manner as in the first specimen, with 
but in it these teeth are broken down and are much encum- 
bered with the matrix, and there can be little doubt some of 
them have entirely disappeared ; eight nevertheless can be 
counted. Had we not had the first-described specimen for 
comparison, we night have taken this lateral row of pag 
teeth to have belonged to either a maxilla or a mandib e 
pressed inwards; but after carefully considering the evidence 
for and against, we think it favours the opinion we have 
adopted, though it is quite possible that we may be mistaken. 
At the same time it must be remarked that this row of teeth 
occupies exactly the same position that the lateral vomerine row 
does in the other specimen, that it is of the same length, an 
that the number of teeth is Die eid the same, two or three 
having been removed in the first specimen, 
