THE MIOCEKE OF THE MALTESE ISLAITDS. 21 



From the reputed Miocene of the neighbouring island of Gozo 

 another Crocodilian has been described by Mr. J. W. Hulke * under 

 the name of Crocodilus r/audensis, which is said to differ from Tomi- 

 stoma champsoides by its smaller size, more slender and more sharply 

 pointed teeth, and the structure of the dental enamel. In his 

 description of the skull of this species, Mr. Hulke says that it agrees 

 with Tomistoma Schlegelif in the long rostrum, elongated pre- 

 maxillse (which articulate with the long slender nasals), and in the 

 entrance into the mandibular symphysis of the splenial element. 

 The latter character at once forbids the reference of the species to 

 Crosodilus, and as the specimen agrees with Tomistoma in essential 

 characters (although differing from T. Sclilegeli in several details 

 which do not appear of more than specific value) it may be pretty 

 safely referred to that genus under the name of T. gaudense 

 (Hulke). 



In a recently published paper, Messrs. Toula and Kail::|: hiave 

 described a Crocodilian cranium from the apparently Mio- 

 cene strata of Eggenburg in Lower Austria, which they propose 

 should be provisionally known as Gavialosuchus eggenburgensis. 

 This specimen agrees very closely with T. Schlegeli in the number 

 of the teeth and in the general contour of the rostrum and the 

 relations of the nasals to the premaxillse ; although differing by the 

 presence of five premaxiUary teeth, and the e version of the anterior 

 border of the orbit. In respect to the number of premaxiUary teeth 

 the Austrian form agrees with T. cJiampsoides, and the conclusion 

 as to the value of this character in the one case will likewise apply 

 to the other. The eversion or non-eversionofthe anterior border of 

 the orbit appears to the writer to be also a character which should 

 not be regarded as of generic importance, as he has found it to be 

 very variable in the fossil Gharialoids of the Siwalik HiUs of 

 India § ; and it accordingly seems that the Austrian form may be 

 included in Tomistoma. The two peculiar features of the Austrian 

 species (at least one of Avhich occurs in T. champsoides) indicate a 

 decided approach towards Gharialis ( Gavialis). Finally, the question 

 arises whether this T. eggenhurgense may not be specifically identical 

 with the Maltese T. champsoides ; but it seems impossible to decide 

 the question until the former shall have been figured. If the two be 

 identical, the specific name applied by Messrs. Toula and Kail has 

 the right of priority, since Owen's species has not hitherto been 

 defined. 



The genus Tomistoma is represented at the present day solely by 

 T. ScJdegeli of Borneo, and the three forms noticed above are the 

 only fossil species with which I am acquainted. The occurrence 

 of the genus in the Miocene of the Maltese Islands and Austria 



* Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc. vol. xxvii. pp. 30-32 (1871). 



t Mr. Hulke employs Huxley's generic term Bhynchosuchus, which is of later 

 date than Tomistoma. 



X Anzeig. k. Ak. Wiss. Wien, 1885, pp. 107-109 ; Ann. & Mag. Nat. Hist. 

 ser. 5, vol. xvi. p. 23(5. 



§ See Palseoutologia Indica (Mem. Geol. Surv. Ind.), ser. 10, vol. iii. part 7 

 (1886). 



