THE COTYLOSAURIA 145 



Briefly the important characters of this specimen may be summed 

 up as follows: 



Skull stegocrotaphous, with distinct elements; epiotic probably 

 present ; the lachrymal (postnasal of Jaekel) entering into the poste- 

 rior border of the external nareal opening. Surface of skull sculptured ; 

 a pineal foramen between the parietals; orbital and nasal openings 

 not large, the latter situated near extremity of face. Premaxillae 

 with three teeth, the first one much elongated, the second less so. 

 Maxillae with about sixteen teeth, inserted in a single row, with a 

 pleurodont elevation internally, and not very different in size. Mandib- 

 ular teeth in a single row, biting within the upper teeth, about seven- 

 teen in number, the front ones somewhat elongated ; teeth thecodont, 

 not transverse. Palate with small teeth in two or more rows each, 

 inserted on pterygoids and probably palatines and vomers, dependent 

 upon the location of the sutures. Internal nares small, situated 

 far forward. A cordiform interpterygoidal space. Pterygoids artic- 

 ulating with basipterygoid processes, their dilated posterior processes 

 united with quadrates. 



Vertebrae deeply biconcave, with persistent intercentra. Cora- 

 coids and large procoracoids united by suture with scapula; a su- 

 pracoracoid foramen between scapula and procoracoid. Inter- 

 clavicle with an elongate posterior process and dilated anterior 

 extremity; clavicles closely attached to interclavicle and scapula; 

 no cleithra. Ribs functionally double-headed, attached to inter- 

 centra and diapophyses. Two sacral vertebrae. Pubes and ischia 

 expanded, plate-like, without thyroid foramen. Caudal vertebrae 

 with ribs. Carpus with three bones in the proximal row and four in 

 the distal, and with two centrales; tarsus with two in proximal 

 row, five in the distal and a partially fused centrale, possibly two. 

 Phalangeal formula probably 2-3-4-5-3, 4. 



As to the identity of our specimen I can be but a little more certain 

 than was Case. That it does not belong in the genus Pariotichus 

 is certain, since there is but a single row of teeth on maxillae and 

 dentaries. That it is not specifically identical with Lahidosaiirus 

 hamatus I believe is equally certain, that is if BroiH has rightly identi- 

 fied that species, and I think that he has. It presents some differences 

 from the species incisivus, as described by Cope, but it may provision- 



