4 S. W. WILLISTON 



altogether likely that a similar likeness existed in those early croco- 

 dilian times between the amphiccelian Bernissartidae and such forms 

 as Bottosaurus must have been if really procoelian. Marsh has stated, 

 however, that there are several forms of amphiccelian crocodiles in 

 the New Jersey deposits,' and has, indeed, named one of them 

 Hyposaurus ferox.^ 



Whatever may be the real truth in the case, that the upper New 

 Jersey Cretaceous rocks have yielded the remains of longirostrate 

 amphiccelian crocodiles seems definitely determined from certain 

 remarks made long ago by Professor Cope incidentally in his 

 description of Hyposaurus derhianus from Brazil. ^ These remarks 

 have been so completely overlooked by all other writers upon fossil 

 crocodiles, whether in textbooks or in technical papers, that I ven- 

 ture to quote them in entirety. Even Hay omitted reference to the 

 paper in his remarkably complete catalogue of North American 

 fossil vertebrates. 



The genus Hyposaurus has been hitherto represented by but one well-known 

 species, the H. rodgersi Owen, of the Greensand of the Cretaceous No. ^'^ of 

 New Jersey. Specimens in my possession demonstrate that the genus Hypo- 

 saurus belongs to the Teleosaurida; of St. Hilaire. It differs from Metriorhynchus 

 Meyer in the presence of distinct lachrymal bones, and in the relatively small 

 size of the prefrontals. From Teleosaurus proper it differs in the robust size 

 and vertical direction of the teeth. The orbits are vertical and the sagittal region 

 is a keel. In the H. rodgersi the frontal bone is narrower than in any of the species 

 figured or described by Deslongchamps. The palatal foramina extend forward 

 to the line of the posterior maxillary teeth, and the anterior border is rounded, 

 not acute as in most species of the family. The specimens are not sufficiently 

 complete to enable me to state positively the generic distinction from Steneosau- 

 rus. In Tehosaurus the vertebral hypapophyses only appear on the first and 

 second dorsal vertebrae, while, as Owen obser^'es, they are present on many of 

 the dorsals in Hyposaurus. This peculiarity, and the great contraction of the 

 frontal bone, render it very probable that the genus is distinct from Stene-.)- 

 saurus, but the diagnostic character yet remains to be discovered. 



If the genus is closely allied to the true species of Steneosaurus, 

 then it is quite certain that Hyposaurus is a member of the Teleo- 



1 Marsh, American Journal of Science, Vol. XIV (1877), Sep. p. 14. 



2 Marsh, Proceedings of the Academy 0} Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, 1871. p. 104. 



3 Cope, Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Vol. XXIII; 

 Paleontological Bulletin, No. 40 (1885). 



4Doubtless the Manasquan Marls. 



