762 



Du. n. muKJM ox TitrrvLouox 



[May 3, 



While recoiitly in London I iinnle a carefnl study of the type, 

 whicli, unfortunately, i.s still the only specimen known, and foun<l 

 that a good deal moie could he made out of the oiigiual specimen 

 than was supposed. 



In a considerable number of jioints my conclusions differ from 

 those of Owen and Seeley. The tlat piece of bone on the upper 

 part of the snout, wliich both Owen and Seeley believe to be the 

 frontal, I consider without doubt the upper part of the nasal. 

 The pair of imperfect bones, which form a median ridge at the 

 back part of the specimen as preserved, are believed by Owen and 

 Seeley to be the })arietals. I j-egard them as the anterior halves 

 of the frontals. The bone which Seeley believes to be the pre- 

 frontal I hold to be the upper part of the large lachrymal. 



Tcxt-iiir. <)H. 



Upper view of snout of Triti/Uidon hmgrevus Owen, s nat. size. 



Tr. Frontal. Jh. Juiral. J^n. Liiclirynml. jl/.r. Maxilla. Na. Nasal. 

 I'mx. Preniaxilla. iS)n.r. St'ptoinaxilla. 



Owen gives the dental formuU as / 2, vi fi. I believe there are 

 pretty certainly seven molars, and in front of the large incisors 

 there is a socket which probably had a small anterior inci.sor, I 

 therefore conclude that the formula, is i?>, ml. There is un- 

 doubted evidence tluifc the lower molars ground with an antero- 

 posterior motion again.st the upper. The lower incisors most 

 probably passed together between tlie large upper incisoi's, which 



