628 DR. R. BROOM ON 



T'ight arm is seen. The pe^lvis is barllj? preserved, but botli ischia 

 iire well seen and most of the left hind leg. 



The pi-emaxilla is particularly interesting in having no inter- 

 nasal process, and in this resembling the bone in lihynchosaurus 

 jind Ifyperodapedon. It has two well-developed acrodont teeth, 

 which are round and blunt. The maxilla is long and narrow, 

 nnd has 13 irregularly arranged rounded blunt acrodont teeth. 

 A disarticulated quadrate, which is not that of Euparlceria and 

 pretly certainly that of Mesos'uc/uis, is nearly as broad as long, 

 a,nd much more massive than the quadrate of Euparkeria. There 

 ar3 two moderately distinct condyles. Wa,tson's description of the 

 palate cannot at present be added to. " Pterygoid of remarkable 

 whape with a deep posterior ramus applied to the inner side of 

 the quadrate, small external ramus (not well exposed) and long 

 anterior ramus which bears a closely-set series of small pointed 

 teeth. Vomer apparently narrow, with a series of small pointed 

 teeth articulated with anterior end of pterygoid. Other bones 

 of palate not shown. Epipterygoid widened with a deep notch 

 for the optic nerve, touching the top of the deep posterior ramus 

 of the pterygoid. Parasphenoid very large and placed high up in 

 the skull." Most of the postcraiiial skeleton desciibed by Watson 

 are really bones of Etiparkeria^ while the supposed scapula is 

 rea,llv the ischium of Broumiella africcma. 



The lower jaw is fairly well presei'ved in the type specimen. 

 It differs from the jaw of Euparkeria in having a relatively 

 small latei'al opening and in having the part of the jaw behind 

 the opening la.rger than the dentaxy portion. The surangular 

 forms more than the upper half of the outside of the back of the 

 ja.w. a.nd the rest is mainly formed by the a.ngular. 



■ The vertebrae are not well preserved. They a,re of about the 

 same size as those of Euparkeria capensis. The cervicals have 

 fairly long spines, and the whole neck is relatively l^^nger than in 

 Eitptwkeria — probably 11 vei'tebrse may be cervical. Altogether 

 tliere appea.r to be, as in Euparkeria, 26 pre-sacral vertebrae, and 

 apparently 2 sa,cral. 



The humerus, radius, and ulna, are much more massive than in 

 Eii/parkeria, but not very well preserved. The humerus measures 

 ;-i7 mm. in length. 



The ilium differs considerably from that of Euparkeria, and 

 resembles mTich more closely that of Hoimsia. Though imperfectly 

 preserved, the upper part of the ilium is manifestly about twice 

 as deep as in Euparkeria. The ischium also differs markedly fiom 

 that of Euparkeria in being relatively much shorter, and having 

 only a short symphysis. The pubes are veiy badly preserved, 

 but have ma,nifestly been much broa,der tha,n in Euparkeria,, 

 though essentially similar in type. The illusti-ations given show 

 the specimen as preserved and the pelvis restored. 



The femur, tibia, and fibula are not unlike those of Euparkeria. 

 The femur probably measures 49 mm. in length, and the tibia 

 47 mm. The tarsus has the bones displaced, but is apparently 



