302 0. P. Hay — Species of Satirocephalus. 



arch, at the point indicated by the line s, there appears to bean 

 indication of a suture. If such it is, it probably extends down- 

 wards to a point near the hinder end of the palatine. The 

 arrangement of the bones is quite different from that found 

 by myself in Xiphactinus* 



At the lower border of the anterior end of the palatine 

 there is a broad surface, v, which was probably in contact with 

 an articulating surface on the vomer. The notch seen in the 

 anterior end is occupied by another articulatory surface, mw, 

 for the anterior palatine condyle of the maxilla. The anterior 

 end of the upper border furnished an articulation, pfc, with 

 the prefrontal, but this is elongated and rough, not broad and 

 smooth, as it is in Xiphactimts. 



Anteriorly the palatine is thick and strong. On its outer 

 surface this portion is finely vermiculated above, while the 

 lower portion furnishes a concave articulation for the condyle 

 of the maxilla. The general appearance of this portion may 

 be seen from fig, 4, which represents the palatine of the next 

 species. Below the concave surface for the palatine condyle 

 of the maxilla there is seen a broad rough surface which must 

 have been applied to the inner face of the maxilla. The 

 greater portion of this is wanting in the specimen shown in 

 fig. 4. Its limits are indicated by the dotted line. On the 

 outer face of the metapterygoid, from the highest point seen 

 in fig. 3 there runs downward and backward a sharp ridge 

 which evidently bounded the orbit below. The portion of the 

 metapterygoid above and mesiad of this ridge formed the floor 

 of the orbit. This indicates that the orbit was placed well 

 backward. I find no satisfactory evidences of the presence of 

 teeth on the pterygoid and palatine bones. If we shall add to 

 the maxillary the probable antero-posterior extent of the pre- 

 maxillary, we shall find that it is approximately equal to the 

 length , of the lower jaw. Hence the latter did not project 

 beyond the upper jaw as it did in the case of those species 

 which Stewart has referred to the genus Saurodon. 



Two characters seem to distinguish Saurodon from Sauro- 

 cepkahts, viz.: the presence of notches, instead of foramina, 

 for the successional teeth and the projection of the lower jaw 

 beyond the snout of the fish. I have been inclined to believe 

 that the presence of these two characters is sufficient to dis- 

 tinguish Saurodon as distinct. However, I observe in some 

 specimens of this supposed genus that some of the notches 

 become closed into foramina; and we can easily imagine all 

 gradations between notches and foramina high above the alve- 

 olar margin. Moreover, it is probable that the other character 

 will fail. ^ Kecently Mr. Stewartf has published figures, with- 

 out description, of remains which he refers to Cope's Sauro- 



*Zoolog. Bull., ii, 1898, p. 39. fig. 7. 

 ■{•Kan. Univ. Quart., vii, pi. xvi, figs. 4, 5. 





