2C8 TEETIAET VEETEBEATA OE THE FATtTM. 



prominence. The portion of the basioccipital beneath the occipital condyle is 

 comparatively short and much more nearly resembles the basioccipital of Gharialis 

 than the vertically elongated bone of Tomistoma schlegeli, but at the same time the 

 basal tuberosities for muscle-attachment are only slightly developed. The foramen 

 magnum is wider than high, as in Tomistoma. The skull-roof differs widely from that 

 of the recent Tomistoma, particularly in its much greater breadth, which depends 

 mainly on the large size of the supratemporal openings. One result of this increased 

 width of the skull-roof is that the lateral temporal fossse look more directly outwards 

 and less upwards than in Tomistoma, thus more nearly approaching the condition 

 found in the Gavial. The orbits, unlike those of Tomistoma schlegeli, are rounded 

 more as in Gharialis, but at the same time have not the prominent borders found in 

 that genus. In the width of the interorbital bar this skull is exactly intermediate 

 betvveen the two genera. 



In front of the orbits the snout narrows less gradually than in Tomistoma, but at 

 the same time not nearly so suddenly as in Gharialis ; in the degree of its dorsi- 

 ventra] compression also it is intermediate between the two. The long slender nasals 

 extend forwards to a point about opposite the first maxillary tooth, thrusting 

 themselves between the slender facial processes of the premaxillae, which extend 

 back to the level of the space between the fourth and fifth maxillary teeth, so that 

 the overlap of the two bones is considerable. It is mainly on account of this character 

 that this species is referred to Tomistoma, since in Gharialis the nasals are separated 

 from the premaxillae by a long interval in which the maxillae meet in a median suture. 

 On the palate the palatines extend forwards in a wedge between the posterior ends 

 of the palatine plates of the maxillae, reaching the level of the twelfth maxillary tooth. 

 The form of the maxillo-palatine suture is the same as in Gharialis, while in Tomistoma 

 schlegeli it is only slightly convex forwards. The premaxillary expansion is much less 

 than in Gharialis, but at the same time rather more marked than in Tomistoma schlegeli ; 

 on the palate the premaxillse extend backwards between the maxillse to just behind 

 the level of the third maxillary tooth. The nasal opening is comparatively large. 



In the specimen described all the teeth have fallen from their sockets, but from 

 these it can be seen that there were 22 or 23 on each side, or rather more than 

 in Tomistoma (20-21), but considerably fewer than in Gharialis (27-29). In each 

 premaxilla there are five teeth arranged as in the Gavial. In the recent Tomistoma 

 only four are present, though in some of the fossil forms referred by Lydekker to that 

 genus five are present {T. champsoides, T. eggenburgense) ; the third and fourth are the 

 largest, and behind the fifth is a broad notch for the reception of the mandibular tooth. 

 In the maxillse the alveoli are almost equal in size throughout, and they open outwards 

 and forwards, both Gavial-like characters. There are no pits for the reception of the 

 lower teeth, except perhaps between the alveoli 12-13 and 13-14. 



In some respects the present species approaches the Lower Miocene form described 



