ERIK A : SON STENSIO 
Text fig. 52. 
UndinapenicillataMijNSTER. 
Sketched from the type specimen 
of Reis, PI. I, fig. 9, 1888. */,. 
Mptg, metapterygoid; Pt, ptery¬ 
goid; Qli, quadrate. 
(Huxley, 1866, pp. 35 — 36; Reis, 1888, pp. 62—63; Woodward, 1909, p. 172), Coccoderma 
(Heineke; 1907, pp. 12—13), Undma (R.eis, 1888, pp. 24—26; 1892, pp. 22—23), Libys (Reis, 
1888, PI. II, fig. r) ; Coelacanthns (a couple of specimens from the Carboniferous) and 
Matvsonia (Woodward, 1907 a, p. 134). In Mawsonia, however, there are only remains of 
the basisphenoid (B. M. P. 10355, M. gigas; one of the type specimens of Woodward’s 
description 1907), which has strong basipterygoid processes as usual and, with regard 
to the development of the anterior lamellae, closely resembles the corresponding bone 
in Axelia. Woodward’s (1907 a, p. 134) view that the parts of bone that are present belong 
to the otical region is thus only correct to a very slight extent, but it ought in justice 
to be pointed out at the same time that the explanation of these, 
strongly flattened and crushed remains must have been very 
difficult without a deep knowledge of material such as that ob¬ 
tained from Spitzbergen. 
The interorbital wall, as Woodward (1891b, p. 395; 1909, 
p. 172) and Wellburn (1902, p. 476) have pointed out, was in 
forms so far known unossified. The orbitosphenoid of the de¬ 
scriptions of Undim. by Reis (1888, PI. 1, fig. 22) and Heineke 
(1907, fig. 1, p. 8) is in fact only an upward-bending lateral part 
of the parasphenoid and this is also true in certain cases of the 
bone in Macropoma described by Huxley, 1866 as the prefrontal 
(cf. Huxley, 1866, PI. VIII, fig. 1, Pr.f ). 
In other cases, on the contrary, I have found that Huxley’s 
prefrontal in Macropoma corresponds to my preethmoid, and, 
as far as one can judge from Woodward’s description of Macropoma 
1909, the latter author (1.909, p. 174) also gives the preethmoid 
of my nomenclature as the prefrontal. The material described 
by Reis (1888) from the white Jurassic is very incomplete as 
regards the ethmoidal region, so that his interpretations of the 
elements there is unreliable and in many respects undoubtedly 
incorrect. I myself have really little to add with regard to this 
material, as the state of preservation scarcely enables one to 
come to any certain conclusions as to how the different frag¬ 
ments of bone belonged together. What Reis (p. 48; PI. II, 
fig. 1) has called the prefrontal is, however, contrary to the 
bone so called by Huxley and Woodward, the remains of a membrane bone belonging 
to the sensory canal category and may possibly correspond to my nasalo-antorbital or 
perhaps, more correctly, to the nasal component of this bone. 1 ) 
The membrane bones of the neurocranium. — In all the nearer known 
Coelacanthids the membrane bones of the cranial roof seem, on the whole, to resemble 
those of the Spitzbergen forms, and in this connection I have nothing to add to what 
has been put forward above in the descriptions of these. 
Text fig. 5.3. 
Coccoderma suevicum 
Quenstedt. 
Sketched from the type specimen 
of Heinekb’s text fig. 2 and 
PI. VI, fig. ii. 3 l t . 
Mptg, metapterygoid; Pt, ptery¬ 
goid ; Qu, quadrate. 
r ) In this connection it may be pointed out that the view of Allis, 1919 (1919 a, pp. 379—382) with regard 
to the primordial neurocranium of Macropoma is erraneous, which, however, is due to the fact that he based his 
exposition on the old interpretations of the cartilage bones. 
