64 MR. C. W. ANDREWS ON THE SKULL AND 
is deeply concave from side to side, giving the symphysial region a spout-like form. 
Behind the convexity of the symphysial region the ventral edge of each ramus is 
anteriorly slightly concave and posteriorly rather strongly convex. The upper borders 
of the rami are at first convex and sharp-edged, behind this, as far as the small coronoid 
process, they are straight and blunt. Behind the coronoid process the edge slopes 
down to the articular cup for the quadrate. The facets on this are two in number, one 
external and elongated, one inner and rounded in outline ; both are concave from before 
backward, and they are separated by a deep fossa, but no pneumatic foramina are 
present. ‘There is a large and very prominent internal angular process; the inferior 
angle is broken away, but it can only have formed merely a slight projection. Just 
beneath and in front of the coronoid process the mandible is perforated by a very large 
vacuity. 
Comparison of the Skull of Phororhacos with that of other Birds. 
Comparison of the skull of Phororhacos with that of the Struthious birds at once 
excludes the possibility of any affinity between it and them. ‘The form of the palate, 
in which, as already described, the palatines and pterygoids both articulate with the 
rostrum, the reduction or absence of the vomer, and the double head by which the 
quadrate articulates with the skull, are all points not occurring in any Ratite bird. 
It then remains to determine what are the closest allies of Phororhacos among the 
Carinate, a question of which any satisfactory solution is very difficult. 
Taking the palate first for comparison, we find that it presents in some respects a 
very remarkable resemblance to that of certain Tubinares, especially the Albatross 
(Diomedea). In this bird, as in Phororhacos, the maxillo-palatine plates together with 
the anterior region of the palatines form on either side a very prominent ridge, 
projecting considerably below the level of the tomium, the form of which also is very 
similar in the two birds. The palatines and pterygoids are also similar to those of the 
fossil in their relations one to another and to the rostrum ; but the palate differs much in 
form, the internal lamina being much the larger, while in Phororhacos the reverse is the 
case. There are a number of other important differences: thus, in Diomedea the palate 
is schizognathous and the anterior end of the large vomer appears upon it; there are 
large supraorbital fossee. In Phororhacos the palate is desmognathous, the vomer is 
inconspicuous, and there seem to have been no supraorbital fosse whatever, although 
slight displacement of the large supraorbital plates of the lachrymal at first sight 
gives the skull the appearance of having possessed them. Moreover, the form of the 
antorbital fossa and that of the quadrate are different in many respects. In spite of 
a certain similarity between the skulls, it does not seem that any close affinity exists 
between Phororhacos and the Tubinares, and in fact, as will be seen below, the structure 
of the limb-bones and pelvis lends no support whatever to any such relationship. 
Comparing the fossil with the skulls of various desmognathous types, one is at once 
