128 ON SOME AMPHIBIAN AND KEPTILIAN REMAINS 
I can find no indication of a suture in the bony plate which 
covers the supraoccipital region. The quadratum is cut away on 
one side, and so embedded in the matrix, on the other, that its form 
cannot be made out. The whole suspensorium, however, projects 
downwards and backwards. The lower jaw has the same parabolic 
outline as the skull; but some adherent matrix must be cleared 
away before its exact proportions and constituents can be made out. 
The teeth are very numerous, and close-set, not more than {th of 
an inch long. They are conical, straight, and sharp-pointed ; and 
their bases are expanded, and marked by about twelve longitudinal 
folds, which extend to near the apex of the tooth. 
On comparing this fossil with Brachyops laticeps, its proportions 
are seen to be widely different, though the two skulls have within 
half an inch of the same length; and therefore specific identity is 
out of the question. Indeed, considering the additional difference 
in the relative size, in the form, the position, and the direction of 
the orbits, I conceive that the Australian fossil may be safely re- 
garded as the type of a new genus, for which I propose the name 
of Bothriceps, in allusion to the peculiarly pitted character of the 
sculpture of such of the cranial bones as are left. I should, indeed, 
have been disposed to bring forward this pitted sculpture more 
prominently in alluding to the difference between this genus and 
Brachyops, were it not that the character of the surface of that part 
of the skull of the latter fossil which corresponds with all that is 
left of the cranial bones of Aofhriceps is not clearly discernible. The 
present species may be called Bothriceps Australis. 
Whatever be the relations between the Australian and Indian 
fossils, the evidence, as it stands at present, justifies our regarding 
both as generically distinct from the African Labyrinthodont, whose 
dermal scutes alone separate it from all other members of the 
group, the scutes of <Avrchegosaurus having perfectly different 
characters.! 
I propose therefore to. form a new genus, AZ7cropholis, for this 
African fossil, and to call it AZzcropholis Stowi?, after its discoverer,? 
who has the merit not only of finding the fossil, but recognizing its 
Batrachian affinities, sending home with it the skull of that African 
I*rog which seemed to him most nearly to approach it. 
The concurrence of Labyrinthodont remains with the beaked and 
! There is no certainty that the Avzsopes seutulatus (Owen) of the Warwickshire Trias is. 
really a Labyrinthodont ; and if it proves to be such, its scutes are very different from those 
of ALtcropholts. 
® Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc., vol. xv. p. 193. 
