﻿AND 
  AYES 
  OF 
  NORTH 
  AMERICA. 
  57 
  

  

  On 
  teeth 
  of 
  the 
  latter 
  kind 
  Emmons 
  established 
  his 
  Palceosaurus 
  carolinensis 
  and 
  P. 
  

   sulcatus; 
  and 
  Leidy, 
  Gompsosaurus 
  prisons 
  and 
  Eurydorus 
  serridens. 
  On 
  teeth 
  of 
  the 
  for- 
  

   mer 
  kind 
  Emmons 
  based 
  his 
  Glepsysaurus 
  pennsylvanicus 
  in 
  part 
  ; 
  his 
  Ehytidodon 
  caro- 
  

   linensis 
  and 
  R. 
  sulcatus; 
  Leidy's 
  Omosaurus 
  perplexus 
  and 
  Lea's 
  Centemodon 
  sulcatus 
  had 
  

   a 
  similar 
  origin. 
  The 
  names 
  based 
  on 
  the 
  lenticular 
  teeth 
  accompany, 
  as 
  prior 
  to, 
  or 
  

   synonymes 
  of, 
  the 
  latter 
  series. 
  There 
  is 
  much 
  difficulty 
  in 
  collating 
  them, 
  but 
  I 
  may 
  

   follow 
  Emmons 
  at 
  present, 
  in 
  seeing 
  in 
  the 
  two 
  styles 
  of 
  smooth 
  and 
  fluted 
  teeth, 
  those 
  

   representing 
  different 
  species. 
  

  

  In 
  this 
  way 
  I 
  have 
  attached 
  to 
  the 
  fluted 
  toothed 
  Rliytidodon 
  carolinensis, 
  Emmons, 
  

   the 
  Palceeosaurus 
  sulcatus 
  of 
  the 
  same 
  author. 
  Emmons 
  does 
  not 
  offer 
  any 
  grounds 
  of 
  

   separation 
  for 
  his 
  R. 
  sulcatus, 
  nor 
  Lea 
  his 
  Centemodon 
  sidcatus; 
  neither 
  can 
  I 
  find 
  aught 
  

   in 
  Leidy's 
  Omosaurus 
  perplexus 
  by 
  which 
  it 
  can 
  be 
  separated. 
  Leidy 
  represents 
  it 
  to 
  be 
  

   an 
  "Enaliosaurian," 
  while 
  Emmons 
  says 
  (North 
  American 
  Geology, 
  67-79-82), 
  that 
  it 
  is 
  

   the 
  same 
  as 
  his 
  Glepsysaurus 
  and 
  Rliytidodon, 
  citing 
  Leidy 
  as 
  authority 
  for 
  this 
  close 
  ap- 
  

   proximation. 
  If 
  this 
  be 
  the 
  case, 
  the 
  form 
  is 
  a 
  shore-loving 
  Belodont, 
  and 
  not 
  nearly 
  

   related 
  to 
  the 
  marine 
  reptiles 
  included 
  under 
  the 
  old 
  name 
  of 
  Enaliosauria. 
  

  

  To 
  the 
  smooth 
  toothed 
  type 
  belong 
  posterior 
  teeth 
  named 
  by 
  Emmons, 
  Palceosaurus 
  

   carolinensis, 
  and 
  by 
  Leidy, 
  Compsosaurus 
  priscus 
  and 
  Eurydorus 
  serridens, 
  and 
  anterior 
  

   teeth 
  referred, 
  erroneously 
  in 
  part, 
  as 
  I 
  believe, 
  to 
  Glepsysaurus 
  pennsylvanicus, 
  Lea. 
  The 
  

   first 
  mentioned 
  name 
  cannot 
  be 
  used, 
  as 
  it 
  has 
  been 
  already 
  applied 
  to 
  a 
  member 
  of 
  this 
  

   genus. 
  The 
  third 
  was 
  based 
  on 
  a 
  specimen 
  from 
  a 
  very 
  remote 
  locality, 
  and 
  its 
  proper 
  

   application 
  remains 
  uncertain. 
  The 
  second 
  specific 
  name 
  may 
  be 
  employed 
  in 
  the 
  uncer- 
  

   tainty, 
  though 
  its 
  clescriber 
  included 
  both 
  fluted 
  and 
  smooth 
  teeth 
  in 
  the 
  same 
  species. 
  

  

  Specimens 
  in 
  the 
  Academy 
  Mas., 
  from 
  Montgomery 
  Co., 
  N. 
  Ca., 
  consist 
  of 
  vertebrae, 
  

   tarsal 
  bones, 
  etc., 
  and 
  parts 
  of 
  cranium 
  with 
  dermal 
  bones 
  of 
  this 
  species. 
  A 
  tooth 
  in 
  

   place 
  in 
  the 
  extremity 
  of 
  the 
  ramus 
  of 
  the 
  mandible, 
  is 
  as 
  smooth 
  as 
  those 
  from 
  more 
  pos- 
  

   terior 
  positions 
  in 
  the 
  jaw, 
  figured 
  by 
  Emmons, 
  N. 
  Am. 
  Geol., 
  p. 
  69, 
  fig. 
  42, 
  which 
  in 
  

   some 
  measure 
  supports 
  Emmons' 
  hypothesis 
  of 
  the 
  uniformity 
  of 
  the 
  characters 
  of 
  the 
  sur- 
  

   face 
  sculpture. 
  The 
  cranial 
  fragments 
  indicate 
  a 
  Belodont, 
  and 
  the 
  vertebras 
  are 
  different 
  

   from 
  those 
  of 
  Clepsysaurus. 
  

  

  The 
  vertebra?, 
  (No. 
  5) 
  from 
  the 
  coal 
  of 
  Chatham 
  Co., 
  N. 
  Ca., 
  were 
  accompanied 
  by 
  

   teeth 
  of 
  the 
  fluted 
  character, 
  though 
  they 
  were 
  not 
  on 
  the 
  same 
  block. 
  As 
  the 
  former 
  

   indicate 
  a 
  species 
  distinct 
  from 
  that 
  from 
  Montgomery 
  Co., 
  I 
  have 
  regarded 
  them 
  as 
  pro- 
  

   bably 
  pertaining 
  to 
  Emmons' 
  Rliytidodon 
  carolinensis. 
  

  

  The 
  remains, 
  (No. 
  6) 
  from 
  Phcenixville, 
  include 
  vertebrae, 
  bones 
  of 
  the 
  pelvic 
  arch 
  and 
  

   posterior 
  limb, 
  with 
  dermal 
  bones, 
  but 
  no 
  teeth. 
  They 
  indicate 
  an 
  animal 
  distinct 
  from 
  

   either 
  of 
  the 
  preceding. 
  

  

  AMERI. 
  PIIILOSO. 
  SOC. 
  — 
  VOL. 
  XIV. 
  15 
  

  

  