Bui.LKTlN 25 8l 



thes, ' ' while the basal or ventral view of the left quadrate is shown 

 on Plate II. (6. c). His representation of the "right pterygoid 

 bone" is somewhat remarkable (PI. II, figs. 7, 7a and 7b), and I 

 have restored it as best I could. From Marsh's account, there is 

 no question about its meeting the proximal end of the correspond- 

 ing palatine, about its articulating with a stout facet found on the 

 basisphenoid, and about its articulation with the pterygoidal pro- 

 cess of the quadrate of the same side. 



In restoring the hinder portion of the base of the cranium, 

 I was entirely guided by Figure 5 of Plate II of the "Odontorni- 

 thes," though I must add that I am by no means convinced as to 

 its correctness. As Fig. 5 of Plate I in that work is given nat- 

 ural size as well as Fig. 5 of Plate II, both being viewed directly 

 from above, it is clear that the outline of the posterior part of one 

 should be precisely the same as the outline of the other. This, 

 however, is not the case. I am therefore in doubt as to the de- 

 tails being correct, though at this writing it is the best I can offer 

 in view of the fact that there are not at hand the actual specimens 

 I should have. In any event, it will form a basis for improved res- 

 torations in the future, the importance of which will not be ques- 

 tioned by the vertebrate paleontologist. There is one thing, 

 however, which the present article will accomplish : it will once 

 and for all disabuse the mind of the paleornithologist with re- 

 spect to there being any agreement of characters, when we come 

 to compare the skull of an ostrich with that part of the skeleton 

 of Hesperornis. 



