SKELETON OF PHORORHACOS INFLATUS. 65 
struck with its Accipitrine aspect. This, of course, depends chiefly on the form of the 
beak, but is heightened by similarity in several points of detail, ¢. g. the form of the 
lachrymal and of the antorbital fosse. Closer examination shows, however, that the 
structure of the palate is very different, particularly in the relations of the anterior 
end of the palatines to the maxillo-palatine plates; the form of the articulation 
of the quadrate with the mandible is also widely different. Of the Accipitrine birds, 
Serpentarius approaches the fossil most closely both in structure of the anterior region 
of the palate and in the existence of an articulation between the pterygoids and the 
basis cranii. In the Storks the palate is in several respects like that of the fossil, 
particularly in the relations of the palatines to the maxillo-palatine plates; the distal 
articulation of the quadrate is also similarly constructed, but is relatively much wider 
from before backward. On the other hand, the lachrymal bears neither a long 
descending antorbital process nor a large supraorbital plate, and the antorbital fossa 
is different. 
Although the Gruiformes are typically both schizognathous and schizorbinal, it is 
remarkable that Cariama and Chunga, which in external appearance and habits so 
much resemble Serpentarius, should have become both desmognathous and holorhinal, 
like Accipitrine birds. The existence of these characters, therefore, in the skull of 
Phororhacos cannot be regarded as a bar to the relationship between it and the 
Gruiformes, suggested in a former paper and supported by many structural peculiarities 
of the pelvis and hind limb. In fact, since the general line of specialization of Phoro- 
rhacos is similar to that which produced the Cariamide, the occurrence of these 
characters might have been expected. In some points, indeed, ¢.g. in the form of the 
quadrate, Phororhacos differs less from the typical Gruiformes than Cariama does. 
Further discussion of the affinities of this remarkable form is best deferred till after 
the remainder of the skeleton, as far as we know, has been described. 
The dimensions of the skull are :— 
cm, 
Length from anterior end of premaxillz to paroccipital process. . . . 337 
* 5 0 to centre of occipital condyle . 80:0 
Width at paroccipital processes . . . . . +--+ + +++. Ii 
» of cranium at temporal fosse . . - - - + + + © e© © 70 
}) atypostorbitalyprocessesl |. 6 = is > =) <5 « s-peLeO 
,», (least) between temporal fosse . . . - - + + + + + + + 2D 
» Opposite posterior edge of nostril . . . . . - + + + + + 39 
Depth of upper jaw at middle of nostril . . . . . + + + «+ + +» MW 
- s AMOI PANG 6 8o oO fo OG Oem oro oo elllys 
Length of opening of nostril . . . 2 + e+ © © © © © © © + 40 
Width of upper jaw at middle point. . . . - » - se + + se 88 
Height of foramen magnum. . . - + - + + © + © + ee ee IG 
Width of distalend of quadrate . . . . . « » » «© se »« «© + 8B 
