1904.] TRIASSIC REPTILE TELERPETON ELGINENSE. 473 



sutiire between ' squamosal ' and ' quadrate,' and in the exagge- 

 luted length of the anterior mandibular tooth, owing to the root 

 being made to project beyond the bone, the thecodont nature 

 of the Reptile not having been recognised. As to the side teeth, 

 Huxley only described them from their lateral aspect, without 

 mentioning that on the right side of the specimen the fourth 

 maxillaiy tooth may distinctly be seen, in a transverse section, 

 to have been transversely expanded and molar-like. 



The skuU is seen on Mr. Taylor's specimen (B) from the East 

 Quarry, Lossiemouth, to have been much depressed, about as long- 

 as broad, obtusely pointed in fi-ont, with enormous pear-shaped 

 orbits sepai'ated fi-om the posterioi- border by a narrow supra- 

 temporal roof ; these orbits ai-e twice as long as broad, and twice 

 as broad as the least interorbital width, which equals the least 

 width of the supratemporal roof. The nasal bones are large, sub- 

 triangular, and the nostrils nearly teiminal. All the bones are 

 paired, and the sagittal suture is interrupted by a very large, 

 I'ound pineal foramen, which, instead of being bordered entirely 

 by the parietal bones, as in Procolophon, is situated between the 

 frontals and the parietals. The posterior part of the upper 

 surface of the skull and the interorbital region are also well 

 shown by the imperfect skull, C. The posterioi- outline of the 

 skull is strikingly as in Procolophon, there being a shallow notch 

 in the posterior border on each side, and the supi'atempoi'al 

 {epiotic of Seeley, squamosal of A. S. Woodward) forming a 

 pointed process above the deep lateral notch which probably 

 foi'med the border of the large aviricu.lar meatus. No vacuity 

 could be detected i-epi-esenting a latero-tempoi'al fossa. The 

 annexed restoration of the upper surface of the skull is based on 

 Mr. Taylor's two specimens, some of the sutures, in dotted lines, 

 being hypothetical. 



An accident to specimen B, in the coui'se of preparation, has 

 resulted in the fortunate exposure of a part of the dorsal aspect 

 of the palate, which is seen to have been extremely similar to that of 

 Procolophon, at least so far as the basisphenoid and the pterygoids 

 are concei'ned, but the vacuity between these three bones was 

 broader than long, instead of longer than broad. I can see no trace 

 of a pai'asphenoid, any more than in the specimen of Procolophon 

 described by Seeley *. 



Each maxillary bore six large bilobate teeth, the roots houi-glass- 

 shaped in horizontal section, their ti'ansvei'se diametei' at least 

 double the longitudinal, and with large pulp-cavities ; the teeth 

 were implanted in sockets, not acrodont as believed by Huxley. 

 Three conical teeth were present in each preemaxillaiy, the first 

 the largest. The circulai- roots of a few vomeiine teeth are visible 

 in specimen C. 



The dentition therefore bears a close resemblance to that of 



* On the skull of Frocoloplion, of. Seeley, Phil. Traus, clxxx. B, 1889, p. 269, 

 pi. ix. ; A. S. Woodward, Vert. Palseoiit. p. 148, tig. (1898) ; Broom, Rec. Albany 

 Mus. i. 1903, p. 9, 



