270 FRAGMENT OF LOWER JAW OF LARGE LABYRINTHODONT 
edge of the ramus the pointed hinder extremity of the dentary bone 
is seen extending a little behind the level of the centre of radiation 
of the sculpture. 
I may observe that this and other Labyrinthodont mandibles 
which I have seen show that each ramus was composed of only three 
elements, a dentary, an angular, and an articular, the last being 
continued forwards along the upper and inner side of the ramus, 
nearly to the symphysis, and thus taking the place of a splenial bone. 
The posterior, inferior, and internal part of the angular element sends 
a strong process upwards and inwards, and between this process and 
the outer part of the bone the articular is wedged. 
Judging by the proportions exhibited by other Labyrinthodont 
remains from the Warwickshire Trias, it is probable that the entire 
jaw of which this fragment formed a part was about 2 feet long. 
It is questionable whether more than one species of Labyrinthodont 
has been found in the English Triassic rocks; and the most perfect 
remains which have been obtained belong not to the German 
Mastodonsaurus (Jaeger), but to the perfectly distinct genus Lady- 
rinthodon (Owen), which has been erroneously confounded with it. 
It is therefore quite possible, and even probable, that the mandible 
which I have just described may have belonged to a Labyrinthodon of 
large size, and not to Mastodonsaurus Jaegeri, with which, apparently 
merely on account of their size, the Guy’s Cliff specimens have been 
identified. 
In conclusion, I would caution geologists who are unacquainted 
with what has been done by Von Meyer and Plieninger, and others, 
towards elucidating the nature of the Labyrinthodonts, against sup- 
posing that there is any evidence whatever to show that the 
Labyrinthodonts were frog-like animals. All the positive evidence 
tends to show, on the contrary, that they were similar in form to the 
Urodele Batrachia, the salamanders and newts. 
