Vol. 5] 



Miller. — Teratornis. 



311 



flexure of the quadratojugal bar at an angle with the tomia of 

 the beak. Possibly the same condition produced a like result in 

 the form under discussion (figs. 9, 10, 11). As before stated, 

 the beak of the type specimen is entirely wanting. The descrip- 

 tion given below is of a distal fragment (fig. 4), believed by 

 Mr. E. J. Fischer, the University collector, to be part of speci- 

 men no. 12507, a skull of Teratornis almost identical in size 

 with the type specimen. This specimen was shattered through 

 the lachrymal and nasal region while concealed in the matrix. 

 The cranial portion and the beak-tip alone were preserved. The 

 affinities evident from the structure of this 

 fragment are in perfect harmony with those 

 displayed by the cranial fragment and by the 

 type specimen. In the beak, though the ma- 

 jor portion of the left side is wanting, enough 

 of the ridge of the culmen is present to show 

 the extreme degree of compression (fig. 5). 

 The median septum is intact, likewise more 



Fig. 5, Tera- than half the roof of the mouth in the pre- 

 forms merriami maxillary region _ 

 Beak f r a g m e at J ° 



12507 seen from While the general appearance of the beak 



X^* 5 Op open- ' s decidedly aquiline, its structure is vulture- 



ing from beak cay- lik(? in the main T j lere ig n0 osseous i nter _ 

 lty into the mouth. 



nareal septum. The great open nostrils both 

 communicate, as in Cathartes, with the whole inner cavity of the 

 beak-tip and with the mouth cavity. At a point half way between 

 the anterior margin of the nostril and the end of the beak, the 

 beak cavity is divided by the ossified median septum into two 

 high and very narrow recesses. The roof of the mouth in this 

 region is but slightly arched, in fact almost flat, as in the fal- 

 conids, and not at all like the high vaulted beaks of Cathartes 

 and Gymnogyps. The tomial edge also resembles falconids in 

 its straightness just posterior to the hook (fig. 4). 



The degree to which the beak is hooked is not exactly deter- 

 minable. The amount broken from the tip is very slight, and 

 it would seem, from careful examination of the region, that the 

 amount of overhang might have equaled that found in the eagles 

 (fig. 4). 



