SIWALIK CROCODILIA, LACERTILIA, AND OPHIDIA. 
17—225 
with that of the anterior portion of the rostrum, indicates that the whole rostrum 
was very considerably shorter than in G. gangeticm^ and its curvature very great. 
On the facial and palatal aspects the specimen appears to agree very closely with the 
cranium of the existing gharial ; and apparently belongs to an adult individual, thus 
indicating that the species was of considerably smaller size than the fossil race of 
the former. The width of the interorbital bar is as great as in G. gangeticus ; and 
is relatively much greater than in the cranium represented in plate XXXI. fig. 3 
and provisionally referred to G. hysudricus} The premaxillary fissure /.) is as 
narrow as in the existing species. The pitting of the facial surface of the rostrum 
is much more strongly marked than in the latter. 
The hinder part of a smaller cranium in the Indian Museum (No. E. 187) from 
Sind shows that the relative proportions of the interorbital bar, of the supratemporal 
fossae, and the parietal bar separating the latter, are very similar to those obtaining 
in G. gangeticus. The hinder part of the maxillary rostrum of a small individual 
from the same locality (Indian Museum No. E. 23) exhibits the characteristic curved 
profile. 
Specific distinctness and affinities . — Although the present form differs from the 
existing gharial by the non-eversion of the orbits, by the very slight degree of the 
terminal expansion of the premaxillae, and by the presence of pits in the maxillae for 
the mandibular teeth, yet its general resemblance is so strong as to forbid, in the 
writer’s opinion, its reference to a distinct genus. That this form is specifically 
distinct from both the preceding species is quite evident ; and it is equally distinct 
from the so-called G. macrorJiynehus of the French upper cretaceous, and is doubtless 
different from G. dixoni^ of the middle eocene of England. The cranial rostrum 
presents a considerable resemblance to the one species of IIolops^ in which that part 
is known, but there is a marked difference in the relative size of the dental alveoli in 
the two forms, while the premaxillary fissure is much larger in the American species — 
judging, however, from Crocodilus the latter character might well be merely a specific 
one : both agree in the slight expansion of the premaxillae, the non-eversion of the 
orbits, and the presence of interdental pits in the maxillae. Reserving the question 
as to the propriety of generically separating the American forms, there is no 
reasonable doubt as to their specific distinctness from the Sind gharial, and the latter 
may accordingly be named G. curvirostris. The long, straight, terminably expanded 
cranial rostrum of the so-called Gharialis macrorhynchus apparently forbids the idea 
that the present form can be regarded as a direct ancestor of G. gangeticus.^ and it 
must accordingly be looked upon as belonging to a lateral branch now extinct, and 
probably related to the so-called IIolops of the upper cretaceous of N. America. 
1 In the Sind cranium this width is only half an inch less than in the Siwalik HiUs cranium ; the latter being nearly 
double the size of the former. 
2 In this species at the hinder extremity of the mandibular symphysis the interdental pits are larger than in G. gangeticus 
{vide Owen and Hell “ Reptiles of the London-Clay, etc.,” pt. 2. pi. X. fig. 2) ; and it is therefore not improbable 
that interdental pits may have been present in the maxilla. 
3 Tide Cope, ‘ Trans. Amer. Phil. Soc.,’ vol. XIV. art. 1. p. 77 (1870). 
E 
