— 148 — 
tively indicated (p. 4), but the iiearer alTuiities to other 
Saurians, recent and fossil, are not followed out beyond 
a demonstration of the generic difFerence, indicated by 
the term Bhinosaurus. 
The characters recorded and ilkistrated of this uni- 
que fossil have much interested me and have been sub- 
jects of frequent study and comparison, especiaüy in 
the course of acquisition of successive evidences of fos- 
sil Beptilia of the order Labyrintliodontia \ But not 
until a recent acquisition of a fossil skull from South 
Africa, fig-s 1 — 5, have I had in band a specimen which 
«eemed to repeat, at least, the family-characters exem- 
plified in the Memoir on Bhinosaurus, 1 subjoin figures of 
my fossil and propose to indicate the characters by which 
it agrees with Bhinosaurus F., also those in which it dif- 
fers therefrom,and certain additional characters, which may 
be present in the'Moscou fossil, but which point to an or- 
Fgi. 1. 
der oiBeptilia distinct from 
the Sauria proper. 
As in Bhinosaurus the 
skull is depressed, in form 
of an obtuse cone, of which 
£7 the posterior breadth sur- 
passes two thirds of the 
length; and in a greater de- 
gree than in Bhinosaurus, 
as it nearly equals the length 
of the skull. The muzzle is 
obtuse, the nostrils large. al- 
most round, or a füll ellipse, 
and distant: they are se- 
*) Owen, 'Anatomy of Yertebrata'; 8« vol. 1, p. 14. 'Ord. XIII*. 
