ANNIVERSARY ADDRESS OF THE PRESIDENT. 45 
is represented as posteriorly incomplete, and a lower temporal bar 
as absent. This is remarkable, since in Iyuanodon, Hypsilophodon, 
Scelidosaurus, Diclonius, and Diplodocus, in short, in every known 
Dinosaurian skull, the orbit is separated posteriorly from the tem- 
poral fossa by the junction of processes of the jugal and post-frontal 
bones, and a lower temporal bar is present. In all these skulls also 
the quadrate is a much stouter and longer bone than that indicated 
in Sir R. Owen’s restoration. 
Here I would invite attention to a magnificent fragment of a 
Megalosaurian sacrum from Great. Sandford in the Society’s Museum. 
Only three examples of this segment of the vertebral column are 
known. Of these, one, in the British Museum at Cromwell Road, 
has been figured by Sir R. Owen in the ‘ Fossil Reptilia ;’ another, 
in the Oxford University Museum, was figured by Phillips in his 
“Geology of Oxford ;’ and the third, our own, which I have had 
placed upon the table, unfigured as yet, is in some respects a very 
instructive specimen. 
In another paper, on ‘‘The Cranial and Vertebral Characters of 
the Crocodilian genus Plesiosuchus, Owen,” Sir R. Owen redescribes 
and renames some Crocodilian fossils obtained from the Kimmeridge 
Clay by Mr. J. C. Mansel (now Mr. J. C. Mansel-Pleydell), which 
in May and in December 1869* I had the honour of bringing 
under your notice, and which I referred to a Steneosaurus, n. sp. 
S. Manseli. I was gratified to find that Sir R. Owen’s description 
of these remains accorded with my own, and that our only difference 
respecting them consisted in our different estimate of the taxical 
value of the variations in detail of this skull from that of Geoffroy 
St.-Hilaire’s type of Steneosaurus. The chief differences pointed out. 
by myself in 1869 are those now indicated by Sir R. Owen, viz. the 
greater extension of the frontal bones upon the upper surface of the 
snout, the prolongation of the nasals between the premaxillaries into 
the posterior border of the external bony nostril, and the smaller 
number of teeth. With a full recognition of these characteristics, 
it seemed to me preferable to retain the Saurian indicated by these 
Kimmeridgian fossils in the genus Steneosaurus than to originate for 
it a new genus; indeed this appeared the only prudent course 
pending the acquisition of fresh material which should afford infor- 
mation of the structure of the interorbital and palatal regions of the 
skull, then and still unknown. When I wrote my papers in 1869 I 
did not doubt the genuineness of Cuvier’s two skulls of the Gayial, 
“Téte 4 museau plus allongé,”’ and “Téte 4 museau plus court,” 
although there were not wanting circumstances calculated to excite 
distrust: thus Cuvier himself relates his reconstruction of the ‘ Téte 
a museau plus allongé” out of two pieces remaining in the collection 
originally belonging to the Abbé Bachelet, two in the cabinet of 
M. De Dree, two sent to him from Geneva by M. Jurine, and the 
muzzle out of three pieces received from M. Faujas and the Abbé 
Besson. Later in 1869 a copy of the ‘ Prodréme des Téléosauriens 
* Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc. 1869, vol. xxv. p. 390, plates xvii., xviii., and 
vol. xxvi. p. 167, plate ix. 
