1869. J HULKE STENEOSAUKUS ROSTJIO-MINOE. 399 



The Kimmeridge snout has the same oval, laterally compressed 

 terminal nostril in which the Honfleur *' tete a musean plus court" 

 differs from the Gangetic Gavials and the Teleosaurs ; and taken 

 by itself, I think its specific identity could scarcely be doubted by 

 any one who compared it with Cuvier's figures 6, 7, pi. viii. ; while 

 if, when making the comparison, the strong resemblance of the lower 

 jaw is borne in mind, the conviction that the individuals are speci- 

 fically identical becomes irresistible. 



That Cuvier rightly matched the jaws of his "tete a museau 

 plus court" is now established by the conjunction of the jaws in this 

 Kimmeridge fossil, which affords us another instance of the won- 

 derful sagacity of this master in paleontology. The occurrence of 

 amphicoelous vertebrae, and one of these probably the 5th thoracic, 

 together with these Kimmeridge jaws is important, because it re- 

 moves all doubt which of Cuvier's vertebral systems belongs to the 

 " tete a museau plus court," and makes it evident that it is the 

 " systeme concave "*. 



III. The Kimmeridge crocodilian is identical with Dalcosaurus of 

 Quenstedt. 



Inasmuch as the genus Dakosaurus was founded on teeth only, 

 it is with those that the comparison between it and our Kimme- 

 ridge Saurian must be made. 



Quenstedt's description of the teeth of Dakosaurus in * Der Jura,' 

 Tiibingen, 1858, p. 131, was drawn from six teeth in a piece of jaw, 

 probably the lower, 1 foot long ; they are two-edged, serrated, un- 

 equally convex, subincurved, subretrocurved and implanted. He 

 adds that he had formerly f described these teeth under the provi- 

 sional name of Megalosaurus ; and he points out that they differ 

 from genuine Megalosaurian teeth in the greater compression, coarser 

 serrature, and more sickle -like curvature of the latter. Further, 

 Quenstedt identifies with his Dalcosaurus the large tooth which 

 Prof. Plieninger described in the ' Wiirttemb. Jahresheft,' 1846, and 

 represented in fig. 2, tab. 3. of this work under the name Geosau- 

 rus maximus, a name which Plieninger withdrew in 1849, on addi- 

 tional evidence that differentiated his Saurian from Sommering's 

 acrodont Geosuar J. 



Our Kimmeridge teeth agree in every essential particular with 

 those of Plieninger's Geosaurus maximus, and with those of Quen- 

 stedt's Dakosaurus. Plieninger's figures (fig. 2, Taf. 3), which are 



* For a precis of the various views which have been entertained by later 

 writers I must refer to Pietet's ' Paleont.' and Brown's ' Lethsea.' In face of the 

 positive facts that " des vertebres de la deuxieme espece (i. e. systeme concave) 

 etaient petrees dans le meme morceau que la grande machoire inferieure, ce qui 

 pourrait aussi engager a croire qu'elles venoient du meme individu " (Ann. du 

 Mus. t. xii.), it is very remarkable that Cuvier should have allowed spe- 

 culation to prevail, and have assigned to this jaw the " systeme convexe en 

 avant." 



t Cf. " Fiotzgebirg. Wiirttemb." p. 493 in Handb. der Petrefakt., tab. 8, 

 fig. 4. 



X Cf. Wiirttemb. Jabresheft, p. 252, tab. i. f. 7, 1819-50. 



