196 PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM. VOL: XXXIV. 
lower jaw is not nearly so wide. As compared with the lower jaw of 
C’. caretta, the rami (Plate X, fig. 1; Plate XI, fig. 5), seen from be- 
low are not so straight and are thicker. The tip is more upturned and 
more pointed. The alveolar surface is more concave; it is divided by 
a low ridge along the symphysis, and a larger part of it lies behind 
the symphysis, and the symphysis is shorter. The hinder portion of 
the prearticular bone extends much farther backward than it does in 
the Atlantic loggerhead. The horny sheaths of the jaws of this 
species are unknown. 
The horny scutes of the upper surface of the skull (Plate X, fig. 2) 
appear to differ somewhat from those of C. caretta. The frontal 
scute, lying between the orbits, is bounded on each side by two scutes. 
Of these the anterior pair are widely separated from each other in 
advance of the frontal scute. In (. caretta the anterior pair meet 
before the frontal. As in (. caretta, there is a large parietal shield 
and behind it two occipitals. In C. caretta the occipitals are much 
shorter than the parietal; in (’. remivaga they are fully as long as the 
parietal. 
No. 29354 of the U. S. National Museum is a skull of unknown 
origin. It is undoubtedly cospecific with the type of C. remivaga. 
It differs in having the frontal bone of the left side excluded from the 
rim of the orbit. 
The type of this species was mentioned by Dr. George Baur in the 
American Naturalist, where he speaks of having examined a skull of 
Lepidochelys olivacea from West Africa and says that the skull from 
Ventosa Bay belongs to the same genus; but he does not give any spe- 
cific name. That it does not belong to ZL. olivacea seems evident. 
We have at present for comparison of the latter with our new species 
only Eschscholtz’s figure and his description.? A reproduction of this 
figure is to be found in Stejneger’s Herpetology of Japan, 1907, Plate 
XXXIV. 
The head, and especially the snout, of the type of LZ. olivacea are 
more elongated than those of C. remivaga. Eschscholtz says that the 
head of his figured specimen was 2+ inches long and 14 inches wide. 
The width, then, was just two-thirds the length. In our species the 
width is close to 80 per cent of the length. In ZL. olivacea the snout, 
back to the orbit, is one-third the length of the head and one-half its 
width. In @. vemivaga the length of the snout enters into the length 
of the head 4.7 times; into the width, 4 times. In Z. olivacea the in- 
terorbital space is included in the length of the head 2$ times; in C. 
remivaga, 34 times. The frontal scute of Z. olivacea extends much 
behind the orbits; in C. remivaga hardly at all behind them. 
4Volume XXIV, 1890, p. 487. 
6 Zool. Atlas, 1829, p. 3, pl. 1. 
