46: PROCEEDINGS OF THE GEOLOGICAL SOCTETY. 
du Calvados,’ most courteously presented to me by its author, 
M. Eugene Eudes Deslongchamps, first showed me that my confi- 
dence in these two skulls had been misplaced. M. EH. E. Deslong- 
champs, whose accurate and extensive acquaintance with the Croco- 
dilians of the Calvados, equalled only by that of his father, then 
lately deceased (upon whose work the ‘ Prodréme’ is chiefly based), 
after. a careful study of the type skulls, distinctly asserts that the. 
“ Téte 4 museau plus allongé” is compounded of the snout of Stzneo-. 
saurus Edwardsiu, Desl., of the frontal region of Metriorhynchus 
(H. v. Meyer) swpercihosus, Desl., and of the occipital region of a 
smaller individual of this last species. Further, the “‘Téte a) 
museau plus court” is built up of the cranial part of a Metriorhyn- 
chus, the middle part of the snout of a Stencosaurus in the Cabinet 
de Genéve, and the end of a snout from Honfleur. From the 
Honfleur Gavials Cuvier separated another under the title ‘‘ Crocodile 
de Caen.” This type skull consists of the hinder part of the skull 
of Teleosawrus Cadomensis (De Blainv.) and the snout of a species of 
Steneosaurus, probably that figured later by De la Beche under the 
specific name of S. owvoniensis. It is probable that Geoffroy St.- 
Hilaire founded his two genera Teleosaurus and Stencosaurus on the 
type crania of the “‘ Crocodile de Caen” and the “‘Téte a2 museau 
plus allongé,” because collateral evidence makes it likely that he 
had not at that time studied the ‘ Téte 4 museau plus court;”’ and 
he tells us respecting the origin of the name Stenzosaurus, “ de. 
Vétroitesse singuliérement remarquable et décidément caractéristique: 
du crane entre les fosses temporales on déduira sans doute un jour 
la principale considération et le nom générique des fossiles trouvées 
a Honfleur’*. Now this narrowness between the a fossee is 
very conspicuous in the Kimmeridge skull. 
To the fictitiousr character of the two type crania is probably 
referable the great confusion which has arisen in connexion with 
the Crocodilia of the Secondary period, in illustration of which I 
need only cite a few of the genera which have been constructed 
from their remains—Metriorhynchus, H.v.M.; Cistosawrus, H.v. M.; 
Mystriosaurus, Kaup; Pelagosaurus, Bronn; Mosclosaurus, Kngyom- 
masaurus, B.; Glaphyrorhynchus, B.; Streptospondylus, H. v. M.; 
Leptocranius, B.; and Macrospondylus, H.v. M. ach of these is 
«a member of one of Geoffroy St.-Hilaire’s two original genera which, 
in spite of their spurious birth, have acquired in the course of years 
a concurrent ascription of associated anatomical characters which 
has preserved them from suppression. 1 need not now enlarge upon 
the differential characters which separate the Teleosaurs from the 
Steneosaurs, these may be found in Deslongchamps’s instructive ‘ Pro- 
drome,’ for it will not, I think, be contended by any that Steneo- 
saurus Manseli, Hulke, belongs to the first of the two genera. If, how- 
ever, each of these two genera be enlarged to the rank of a family 
or suborder (Teleosauria and Stencosauria), mens several 
* Mém. du Mus. tom. xii. p. 149. 
+ I need scarcely add that this word is not used in a disrespectfal sense. My 
intense admiration of Cuvier would make such a meaning impossible to me. 
