1905.] OSTKOLOGY OF THE MASTIGCRE LIZARD. O 



attention. The junction of the palatine with the maxilla — the 

 direct junction, not that through the transverse bone — is long 

 and firm in Hatteria, a fact which, possibly, is correlated with the 

 existence and position of the palatine teeth. Their groundwork 

 is thus strengthened. As possibly comparable to this, it is inter- 

 esting to note a slip of bone in Uromastix (text-fig. 1, A. PI., p. 3), 

 continuous with and not segmented off from the palatine, which 

 runs forward in close apposition to the maxilla. Among the 

 immediate allies of Uromastix, e. g. Amphiholurus, Iguana, this 

 process of the palatine is aborted. Finally (so far as concerns the 

 palate), it is important to notice that the palatine bones have not 

 merely the long forward extension that has been referred to, but 

 that they also extend a long way back, reaching, indeed, the 

 transverse bones on either side. This has been noted in Uromastix, 

 and it exists also in some other Lizards, but it is not a universal 

 feature of the Licertiha. I mention the matter here in order to 

 suggest that these two features are an indica,tion of the partial 

 retention of a formerly more extensive palatal bone such as persists 

 in Hatteria. 



I now turn to the consideration of certain points in the skull 

 which do not appear to have been recorded, though I do not pretend 

 that they bear upon the retention of any archaic characters. 



Text-fig. 2. 



Lateral viow of the skull figured ou p. 3. 



JFn, frontal ; J"., jugal; Jf.S., mesethmoid ; JV"., nasal ; P., parietal; (7., quadrate ; 

 pf., postf'rontal ; po., postorbital; Ft., pterygoid; Sg., squamosal; St., supra- 

 temporal. 



The orbital and postorbital regions offer some characters not 

 without interest, and, as it appears to me, are not well known. 

 Gegenbaur has figured and contrasted side views * of three Lacer- 

 tilian skulls including Uromastix and Iguana. In the latter is 

 correctly represented a large postorbital and a, small postf rontal 

 bone. I cannot, however, agree with Gegenbaur's figure of 

 Uromastix — on the assumption, of course, that the species figured 



* Vergleicheiule Anatomie der W'irbeltliiere, vol. i. p. 391. 



