4 MR. r. E. BEDDARD ON THE CRANIAL [Jan. 17, 



f believe that this extension forwards of the pterygoids and 

 subsequent cutting ofi" of the palatines from forming the median 

 portion of the hard palate is a new fact so far as concerns the 

 Lacertilia. It is at any rate clear that the fact, if known and on 

 record, has escaped general attention. For in the elaborate 

 account of the development of the skeleton of Hatteria by Prof. 

 Howes and Mr. Swinnerton*, the greater part of the "Introduc- 

 tion " is devoted to emphasising the characters of the palate in 

 Hatteria, from which introduction I extract the following sentences, 

 viz. : — " One of its (i. e. JIatteria's) most distinctive characters is 

 the forward prolongation of the pterygoids to meet the vomers with 

 apposition in the middle line. The mere forwai'd pi'olongation 

 referred to is a feature already recognisable among the Bati'achia 

 and Stegocephalia." The authors then proceed to refer to those 

 reptiles and birds in which this forward prolongation with or with- 

 out apposition occurs ; but they mention no Lacertilian in which 

 this state of affairs exists. It is plain therefore that it is meant 

 to contrast Hatteria with Lizards in the arrangement of the bones 

 of the palate. 



I am thus able to I'ecord here a new (or at least little known 

 and overlooked) morphological fact which has been held to be of 

 considerable importance. 



■ It would thus appear that the peculiarities of the jaalate of 

 Hatteria as distinguishing that rejatile from the Lacertilia have 

 been somewhat overi-ated, of course through ignorance of the con- 

 ditions which obtain in the lizard which forms the subject of the 

 present communication to the >Society. Apart altogether from the 

 new facts contained in the present paper, the difference between 

 Hatteria and the Lacertilia as i-egards the palate is not greater 

 than between the Emu and a Rail, and is, indeed, almost exactly 

 the same so far as the point under discussion is concerned. The 

 analogy may now, it will be observed, be pushed still further. 

 Uroniastix is Lacertilian so far as its general anatomy is concerned, 

 but shows in its palate a likeness to Hatteria, just as the Tinamou 

 and some other burls f are carinate in most features but 

 " struthious " in certain palatal arrangements. A " Rhyncho- 

 cephalian " character of the bird palate,"as Prof. Howes and Mr. 

 Swinnerton term the thrusting forward of the pterygoids, has 

 been shown to be transitory in some birds and subsequently lost 

 through co-ossification. Whether this is the case with any true 

 Lacertilia I am not aware. 



It must not be understood that I am arguing for a special 

 likeness between Hatteria and Uromastix among "the Lacertilia. 

 I am only urging that a character supposed to be peculiar to 

 Hatteria as contrasted with the Lacertilia is not peculiar to that 

 reptile but is found in a Lacertilian. 



In regard to the palate there is another fact which requires 



* " On tlie DGvelopmeiit of the Skeleton of the Tnatera," Tr. Z. S. xvi v 2 



(1901). ^ 



t See Pycnift, " Contiiliutious to the O.^teulo-y of Birds/' ]'. Z. S. 1808, p. 973. 



