1895.] LOEIUS FLAYOPALLIATUS AND PSITTACUS EBITHACUa. 399 



Eos rubra appears to agree with Lorius jlavopalUatus in all the 

 above points except — 



1. Apex of prosopium not so much bent down though more so 



than in P. erithacus. 



2. Prosopium longer and slenderer because its relative dorso- 



veotral extent in front of nares is less. 



3. Anterior palatine foramen much larger. 



4. Mid-junction of palatines antero-posteriorly shorter. 



5. Posterior margin of palatines less concave. 



6. Postero-ventral angle more produced and much sharper 



than in either L. JlavopalUatus or P. erithacus. 



7. No marked prequadrate process of sphenotic process. 



8. No concavity at hinder end of tomial margin. 



9. Middle of postaxial margin of bony palate more prominent — 



almost a process. 



10. Cranium, seen above, longer and narrower. 



11. Distinct antero-posteriorly extending transverse concavity in 



parietal region. 



12. Prosopium, seen above, much longer. 



13. Interorbital extent of cranium narrower absolutely and 



relatively. 



14. Paroccipital processes rather less projecting postaxiad and 



their apices mesiad. 



15. Median ridge of ventral aspect of prosopium behind bony 



palate much more marked. 



16. Postaxial margin of prosopivim between zygoma and lachry- 



mal process rather more extensive and more concave. 



17. Median supraoccipital prominence less marked. 



18. Bony symphysis of mandible relatively as well as absolutely 



shorter. 



19. Projection mesiad of inner articular process of mandible 



rather less. 



20. Arch of symphysis (mandible being viewed from beneath) 



more acute — much as in P. erithacus. 



21. Apices of angular processes rather more inflected mesiad. 



22. Tomial margin between apex of symphysis and dental process 



slightly more concave. 



