,transcriber's ,note3 ,italic text is denoted by underscores and bold text by equal signs4 ,all corrections in the ,,errata section below have been made in the text4 ,,the ,,ornithosauria3 ,,an ,,elementary ,,study ,,of ,,the ,,bones ,,of ,,pterodactyles4 ,cambridge3 ,,printed ,,by ,g4 ,j4 ,,clay1 ,m4,a4 ,,at ,,the ,,university ,,press4 ,,the ,,ornithosauria3 ,,an ,,elementary ,,study ,,of ,,the ,,bones ,,of ,,pterodactyles1 ,,made ,,from ,,fossil ,,remains ,,found ,,in ,,the ,,cambridge ,,upper ,,greensand1 ,,and ,,arranged ,,in ,,the ,,woodwardian ,,museum ,,of ,,the ,,university ,,of ,,cambridge ,,by ,,harry ,,govier ,,seeley1 ,,of ,,st4 ,,john',s ,,college1 ,,cambridge4 ,,with ,,twelve ,,plates4 ,and when the appointed end comes1 they lie not dishonoured in forgetfulness1--,xenoph4 ,memor4 ,book #b1 c4 #a1 #hc4 ,illustration3 ,cambridge3 ,,deighton1 ,,bell1 ,,and ,,co4 ,,london3 ,,bell ,,and ,,daldy4 #ahgj4 ,all ,rights reserved4 ,the expense of printing this volume has been defrayed out of the ,funds of the ,syndics of the ,university ,press2 and ,professor ,sedgwick hereby expresses his grateful thanks to them for this great favour4 ,,preface4 ,this memoir is a portion of the ,catalogue of the ,woodwardian ,museum which has been made at ,professor ,sedgwick's request and at his cost4 ,when the ,professor laid upon me his commands to prepare a ,catalogue of the ,museum1 it was planned in three distinct works4 ,first1 a series of indexes to the specimens in the great divisions into which the ,museum is arranged2 secondly1 a series of memoirs upon the orders and classes of animals concerning which new knowledge is given by fossils in the ,museum2 and1 thirdly1 memoirs descriptive of those species contained in the arranged collections which are at present unknown in scientific writings4 ,for the convenience of students the ,catalogue is made in parts4 ,the ,syndics of the ,university ,press printed last autumn as an example of the ,indexes to the ,museum1 an ,index to the ,pterodactyles1 ,birds1 and ,reptiles from the ,secondary ,strata4 ,and this memoir is an example of the second kind of ,catalogue1 which explains the structures of the ,pterodactyles of the ,cambridge ,greensand4 ,in its progress questions have arisen which necessitated an examination both of the method1 of research in comparative anatomy and of its results in classification4 ,and in so far as the views here advanced differ from those commonly taught1 the discrepancy is due to the writer's imperfect faith in the results of the inductive method of research1 as commonly used by modern writers on ,palontology4 ,it has not been consistent with the plan of this little work to do more than scatter through it a few hints upon method1 a subject which will more fitly be discussed with a part of the ,catalogue which forms a synopsis of the osteology of the fossil animals usually named ,reptiles4 ,the views here urged have however but little of novelty4 ,the name ,ornithosauria was proposed by the distinguished naturalist ,prince ,charles ,bonaparte in #ahch4 ,the group as an order was recognized by ,von ,meyer in #ahcj4 ,the affinities of the brain appear to have been detected by ,oken1 and the bird-like character of the respiratory system was expounded by ,von ,meyer4 ,and most of whatever this memoir contains has been already thought or discovered by the ,german philosophers1 who have had the ,pterodactyles as fossils of their fatherland1 though my own conclusions were arrived at separately and from different materials4 ,the oldest ,ornithosaurians are from the ,muschelkalk of ,germany4 ,in ,england the oldest are from the ,lias1--several species of ,dimorphodon--a genus in some respects nearly resembling the ,pterosaurians of the ,cambridge ,upper ,greensand4 ,in the ,oolite of ,stonesfield are several species of ,rhamphorhynchus or a similar genus4 ,the great ,plolithic period from the ,oxford ,clay to the ,kimeridge ,clay1 has yielded in its several divisions small ,pterodactyles of new species4 ,and the ,psammolithic period from the ,portland ,sand to the ,lower ,greensand has afforded many excellent remains both of true ,pterosaurians in the ,purbeck1 ,wealden1 and ,potton ,sands1 and of animals which indicate a new order of ,ornithosauria having affinities with ,von ,meyer's thick footed saurians1 the ,dinosauria4 ,in the ,cretaceous series1 ,galt1 ,upper ,greensand1 and ,chalk all have representatives of the ,pterosauria2 but no ,english stratum has hitherto yielded so many as the ,cambridge ,upper ,greensand4 ,from this formation the collection accumulated during ,prof4 ,sedgwick's long professoriate is unequalled2 though1 excepting a few fine bones from the ,chalk and the ,purbeck ,limestone1 the ,woodwardian ,museum is as yet deficient in ,ornithosaurians from the other ,secondary ,rocks4 ,until descriptions of these animals shall have been published a classification of the ,ornithosauria must necessarily be provisional4 ,and it cannot be expected that descriptions of the structure of ,cretaceous ,pterosaurians here given will hold good for all the ,ornithosaurian sub-class4 ,finally1 ,i have gratefully to express my thanks to the many friends1 ,english and ,german1 who have aided me with specimens and with their writings2 to the chiefs and officers of the ,english museums1 especially ,prof4 ,owen1 ,prof ,humphry1 ,prof ,newton1 ,prof ,phillips1 ,prof ,flower1 and ,prof4 ,huxley2 to the officers of the ,university ,library1 especially ,mr ,bradshaw1 and ,mr ,crotch1 for aid in consulting books2 but chiefly to ,prof ,sedgwick1 who while employing me as his paid ,assistant to aid him in his ,museum work1 has generously encouraged me to carry on for several years1 without restraint and as part of my daily labour1 an investigation of which this treatise is the first fruit4 ,prof4 ,sedgwick has placed at my disposal an ample number of copies for distribution among those who take an interest in the ,museum2 and especially among those who have contributed to the ,ornithosaurian collections1 and aided me in my work4 ,january #c1 #ahgj4 ,,contents4 ,page ,introduction #a ,materials #a ,history #c ,organization #g ,cuvier #g ,smmerring #aj ,oken #aj ,wagler #aa ,goldfuss #aa ,wagner #ad ,quenstedt #ag ,burmeister #ag ,von ,meyer #ag ,another view of the ,ornithosauria #bd -------------- ,osteological collection illustrative of modifications of ,ornithosauria in the ,cambridge ,greensand1 pp4 #bh-id4 ,sternum #bh ,coracoid #cb ,scapula #ce ,humerus #ch ,radius and ,ulna #db ,proximal carpal #dh ,distal carpal #ej ,lateral carpal #ea ,metacarpal bone of wing-finger #ec ,first phalange of wing-finger #ef ,second phalange of wing-finger #eg ,claw phalange #ei ,os innominatum #ei ,femur #fb ,tibia #fb ,tarso-metatarsus #fc ,atlas and axis #fd ,cervical vertebr #fe ,dorsal vertebr #fi ,sacrum #gc ,caudal vertebr #ge ,bones of the head #gg ,basi-oocipital bone #gh ,back of the cranium #hj ,back of another cranium #hd ,ethmo-sphenoid #he ,mould of the brain-cavity #hg 8,vomer #hh ,quadrate bone #hi 8,pterygoid end of palatine bone #ia ,premaxillary bones #ia ,lower jaw #ia ,teeth #ib -------------- ,conclusion #id ,a summing up #id ,restoration #ajc ,speculations on habits and aspect #ajd ,notes on ,german specimens #ajf ,classification #ajh ,synopsis of species #aab -------------- ,appendix #abi ,index #acc ,plates1 and explanation of ,plates4 ,,errata4 ,,page ,,line #d1 #b1 from bottom1 for proclian read proclian4 #g1 #ac1 for ,ossements read ,ossemens4 #h1 last line1 paragraph 7#b71 for outermost read innermost4 #aj1 #ba1 #aa1 #e1 for ,smmering read ,smmerring4 #aa1 #ac1 #ad1 note1 for ,beyerischen read ,bayerischen4 #ae1 #e1 for 8zygapophyses read spinous-processes4 #ag1 #f1 from bottom1 for ,herman read ,hermann4 #cg1 #e1 from bottom1 after spine as insert are #ib1 line above 'the ,dentary ,bone1' for ,pterodactyle read ,pterodactyles4 #ig1 #aa1 for ,gnter read ,gnther4 #ii1 #d1 for ,ichthyopteria read ,ichthyopterygia4 #aja1 #aa1 from bottom1 for proclous read proclous4 #ajb1 #ae1 for proclous read proclous4 #aaa1 #h1 for ,smmering read ,smmerring4 ,for epipubic bone read prepubic bone1 pp4 #fa1 #ajb1 #aji1 #aaj1 #aaa1 and pl4 #h4 ,,introduction ,,to ,,the ,,osteology ,,of ,,the ,,ornithosauria ,,from ,,the ,,cambridge ,,upper ,,greensand4 -------------- ,materials4 ,the ,cambridge ,upper ,greensand has yielded to collectors bones which illustrate nearly every part of the skeleton of the animals that are commonly named ,pterodactyles4 ,large collections have been acquired for the ,woodwardian ,museum4 ,a series of more than #ejj bones have been arranged to exemplify the osteology and organization of the ,ornithosauria in the area when the ,cambridge ,greensand was deposited4 ,and this memoir is written to explain briefly some of the structures of the soft and hard parts of those animals which are exhibited or demonstrated by these relics4 ,another collection of nearly #djj bones has been arranged1 which displays in association1 as they were found entombed in the old ,greensand sea-bed1 the remains of the skeletons of thirty-three animals of the ,pterodactyle kind4 ,the whole of the remains from this formation hitherto gathered cannot be computed to have pertained to fewer than #aej individuals1 which indicate a new sub-class of animals1 two new genera and at least twenty-five new species4 ,the bones were mostly of a paper or card-like thinness1 and were originally hollow like the thin bones of birds4 ,in the jaws of other animals1 and in the sea1 they were easily fractured1 so that proximal ends and distal ends and shafts and split bones abound1 while perfect bones are almost unknown4 ,even those bones like the carpals1 which almost retain their entirety1 invariably show indications of having been rolled on the sea-shore among the nodules of phosphate of lime with which they now occur1 in their angular margins being rounded1 and in the removal of slender processes4 ,the rock in which these fossils are found is a thin bed of chalky marl which is heavily charged with dark-green grains of ,glauconite1 and is quarried largely1 and entirely dug away to be deprived of the dark-brown nodules of phosphate of lime with which it is stored4 ,in digging and in the subsequent washing1 the workmen1 stimulated by an ample reward1 pick out the fossils as they are discovered4 ,they are separated easily from the matrix of investing marl1 so that every aspect of each bone is seen1 except for the occasionally adherent oysters and the masses of phosphate of lime1 with which material the bones are also filled4 ,hence these remains afford facilities for the study of the joints such as no other specimens have presented2 and from their large size and comparatively great numbers1 render easy the labour of the student who seeks to contrast them with the bones of other animals4 ,the osteological collection has been formed without regard to species or genera1 and arranged to exhibit the structure and organization of the tribe of animals4 ,so far as possible each bone1 as humerus1 femur1 c41 has its variations of structures and form contrasted on a single tablet4 ,the series comprises the following bones3 ,fore-part of sternum4 ,coracoid 7perfect74 ,scapula 7nearly perfect74 ,humerus 7perfect74 8,radius 7proximal end74 ,radius 7distal end74 8,ulna 7proximal end74 ,ulna 7distal end74 ,proximal carpal4 ,distal carpal4 ,lateral carpal4 ,wing-metacarpal 7proximal and distal ends74 ,first phalange 7proximal and distal ends74 ,second phalange 7proximal end74 ,metacarpal or metatarsal 7distal end74 ,claw phalange4 ,os innominatum 7parts of ilium1 ischium1 and pubis74 ,femur 7perfect74 8,tibia 7proximal end74 ,atlas and axis4 ,cervical vertebr4 ,dorsal vertebr4 ,sacrum and sacral vertebr4 ,caudal vertebr4 ,lower jaw 7dentary and articular ends74 ,premaxillary bones1 c4 ,teeth4 ,quadrate bone 7distal end with quadrato-jugal74 ,ethmoid with basi-sphenoid4 ,occipital and parietal segments of skulls4 ,basi-occipital and basi-temporal4 ,cast of brain-cavity4 ,they are exhibited in ,compartments a1 b1 c of the ,table-case of ,cabinet ,j4 ,the letter ,f in a circle is placed against figured specimens4 ,history4 ,the ,cambridge ,pterodactyles first attain prominence in scientific literature in the year #ahei4 ,professor ,owen had figured 7plate #cb1 fig4 #f-h7 fragments of bones in the ,palontographical ,society's ,monograph for #ahea2 the distal end of a large ulna 7fig4 #f72 the shaft of a phalange of the wing-finger1 probably the first 7fig4 #g72 and the upper portion of the shaft of a small humerus showing part of the radial crest 7fig4 #h74 ,inadvertently the last specimen was referred to the ,lower ,greensand4 ,but although fragments of humerus of ,pterodactyle and vertebr of ,pterodactyloid animals have in the last few years been gathered from the ,potton ,sands1 those deposits were believed to be barren of fossils when ,prof4 ,owen wrote2 and all the ,pterodactyles yet made known from near ,cambridge were collected from the ,cambridge ,upper ,greensand4 ,among the earliest successful collectors were ,mr ,james ,carter1 the ,rev4 ,h4 ,g4 ,day1 ,st ,john's ,coll42 ,prof4 ,g4 ,d4 ,liveing1 ,st ,john's ,coll42 the ,rev4 ,t4 ,g4 ,bonney1 ,st ,john's ,coll42 and ,mr ,lucas ,barrett1 ,trin4 ,coll42 and the ,rev4 ,prof4 ,sedgwick1 ,trin4 ,coll41 on behalf of the ,woodwardian ,museum4 ,mr ,day and ,mr ,bonney both presented every specimen from their cabinets which could enrich the ,university collection4 ,and in the last ten years the ,woodwardian ,museum has acquired1 through the skillful collecting of the ,messrs ,farren1 the present materials4 ,the associated sets of bones were formed by ,william and ,robert ,farren1 who1 obtaining the specimens from day to day as they were discovered1 were enabled to put together such parts of the skeleton as remained together on the sea-bottom4 ,these collections will hereafter be used for the elucidation of species4 ,they are the only materials which can give the proportions of the ,cambridge ,ornithosaurians1 and the contrast of aspect which distinguished the living animals from those from other rocks4 ,the other collections of these fossils are those of ,mr ,william ,reed and ,mr ,j4 ,f4 ,walker at ,york1 the ,museum of ,practical ,geology1 and the ,british ,museum4 ,the ,woodwardian specimens as collected were placed in the hands of ,prof4 ,owen1 and were first made known in the ,professor's lectures on reptiles and birds delivered at the ,museum of ,practical ,geology in #aheh4 ,in that year ,prof4 ,owen communicated to the ,british ,association for the ,advancement of ,science1 and printed in their ,report1 the matter of the memoir which was published with plates by the ,palontographical ,society in #ahei4 ,in this latter year ,prof4 ,owen communicated to the ,royal ,society an account of the vertebral column of ,pterodactyles4 ,in #ahei ,prof4 ,owen also produced a classification of recent and fossil reptiles at the meeting of the ,british ,association1 in which the order ,pterosauria appears with new characters--such as the pneumatic structure of most of the bones--drawn from ,cambridge specimens4 ,in #ahfj ,prof4 ,owen produced another memoir on ,pterodactyles1 which was published by the ,palontographical ,society4 ,a brief account of the tribe appeared about the same time in the ,professor's ,palontology4 ,in these writings are descriptions of the various parts of the vertebral column4 ,their proclian centra are described1 and the pneumatic foramina are noticed and supposed to have communicated with air-cells4 ,they are compared with birds1 and distinguished from birds2 but although the order is classed with reptiles no contrast with reptiles is made4 ,other bones described are a basi-occipital1 and a doubtful bone1 then thought to be a frontal1 but which is more like the neural region of the sacrum4 ,the sternum is compared with the sternum of the birds ,apteryx and ,aptenodytes1 is stated to be formed1 in the main1 on the ,ornithic type1 and to possess distinct synovial articular cavities for the coracoids such as only occur in birds4 ,the inter-coracoid process of the sternum is compared with that of ,bats1 ,birds1 and ,crocodiles4 ,the mechanism of the framework of the wings is said to be much more bird-like than bat-like1 the anchylosed scapula and coracoid being remarkably similar to those of a bird of flight4 ,the coracoid is shorter and straighter in birds than in ,pterodactyles1 but no comparisons are made with reptiles4 ,the humerus is known only by the proximal end4 ,it is said to conform at its proximal end more with the ,crocodilian than with the ,avian type1 but to have the radial crest much more developed than in either ,crocodile or ,bird4 ,the bone is1 however1 chiefly compared with birds1 and is figured between corresponding bones of a ,vulture and a ,crocodile4 ,the pneumatic texture is said to be as well marked as in any bird of flight4 ,of the carpus it is said1 the ,pterodactyle1 in the complete separation of the metacarpus from the antibrachium by two successive carpals answering to the two rows1 adheres more closely to the reptilian type than to that of birds4 ,but the row which was regarded as proximal is the distal row1 while the supposed distal row is proximal4 ,the claw-phalange and distal end of the wing-metacarpal1 the mandible1 teeth1 and jaw are the other bones described1 but their comparative osteology is not discussed4 ,in the ,professor's account of a fragment of a jaw it is said1 ,the evidence of the large and obviously pneumatic vacuities now filled with matrix1 and the demonstrable thin layer of compact bone forming their outer wall1 permit no reasonable doubt as to the ,pterosaurian nature of this fossil4 ,all other parts of the flying reptile being in proportion1 it must have appeared with outstretched pinions like the soaring ,roc of ,arabian romance1 but with the demoniacal features of the leathern wings with crooked claws1 and of the gaping mouth with threatening teeth1 superinduced4 ,when the specimens on which ,prof4 ,owen had founded the foregoing views of the osteology and classification of these animals were at length returned to the ,woodwardian ,museum1 it became a duty of the present writer to arrange and name them4 ,and in a ,memoir on ,pterodactyles which was communicated to the ,cambridge ,philosophical ,society and read ,march #g and ,may #b and #af1 #ahfd1 a position was claimed for them1 distinct from reptiles1 as a separate sub-class of ,sauropsida1 nearly related to birds4 ,in ,september of the same year a communication was made to the ,british ,association ,on the ,pterodactyle as evidence of a new sub-class of vertebrata 7,sauromia71 with enlarged drawings of the skull and some of the other bones1 in which the conclusions arrived at were that1 excepting the teeth1 there is little in such parts of the head as are preserved to distinguish the ,cambridge ,pterodactyles from birds2 and that the remainder of the skeleton gives a general support to the inference from the skull4 ,papers were communicated to the ,cambridge ,philosophical ,society on ,february #ag1 #ahfh1 on indications of ,mammalian affinities in ,pterodactyles in the pelvis and femur1 and ,february #bb1 #ahfi1 on the bird-like characters of the brain and metatarsus in the ,pterodactyls from the ,cambridge ,greensand4 ,the other references to ,cambridge specimens are in a paper ,on the literature of ,english ,pterodactyles in the ,annals and ,magazine of ,natural ,history for ,feb4 #ahfe1 and in ,an epitome of the evidence that ,pterodactyles are not reptiles1 but a new sub-class of vertebrate animals allied to birds1 in the same magazine for ,may1 #ahff4 ,in the meantime ,prof4 ,owen's views have somewhat changed4 ,in the first volume of the ,comparative ,anatomy and ,physiology of the ,vertebrata 7#ahff71 the ,pterosauria are classed as the highest group of reptiles1 and take rank above the ,dinosauria4 ,in the second volume of that work 7#ahff71 occurs the following passage3 ,derivatively the class of birds is most closely connected with the ,pterosaurian order of cold-blooded air-breathers4 ,in equivalency it is comparable rather with such a group than with the ,reptilia in totality1 or with the ,mammalia4 ,organization4 ,nearly every writer on ,pterodactyles1 who has expressed any opinion at all1 has formed an estimate of his own of their organization4 ,they have been assigned to almost all possible positions in the vertebrate province1 by great anatomists who all had before them very similar materials4 ,an account of these views is given by von ,meyer in his monograph of the ,pterodactyles of the ,lithographic ,slate4 ,it will not be necessary to discuss these conclusions here1 for the materials from the ,lithographic ,slate and those from the ,cambridge ,greensand are so different that no light would be thrown on the organization of the animals by an exposition of any fallacious inferences from ,german specimens4 ,in ,england they are classed with ,reptilia1 chiefly through the influence of the discourse upon them given by ,baron ,cuvier in his ,ossemens ,fossiles,a4 ,it therefore may conduce to a clear view of the subject to quote in ,cuvier's words the passages in that memoir which have been supposed to establish their position among reptiles4 ,he says1--,ayant encore port mon attention sur le petit os cylindrique marqu g 7i4e4 os quadratum7 qui va du crne l'articulation des mchoires1 je me crus muni de tout ce qui toit ncessaire pour classer ostologiquement notre animal parmi les reptiles4 ,the exact relations of the quadrate bone are not seen in either ,cuvier's or ,goldfuss' or von ,meyer's figures of this ,pterodactyle1 the ,p4 longirostris2 but in von ,meyer's figures of ,p4 crassirostris1 ,p4 longicollum1 and ,p4 ,kochi it appears to be a free bone articulated to the squamosal and petrosal region of the skull and with the lower jaw4 ,this is not the case with either ,chelonians or ,crocodiles1 which have the quadrate bone firmly packed in the skull2 nor is it paralleled even among those lizards and serpents which have the bone as free2 while1 on the contrary1 it is characteristic of the whole class of birds4 ,the form of the bone is not more ,lacertian than ,avian1 while its direct attachment to the bone of the brain-case finds no parallel among lizards1 but is exactly paralleled in all birds4 ,footnote ,a3 ,tome ,v4 ,part a1 pp4 #ceh1 #chc4 ,edition1 #ahad4 ,cuvier then goes on to say1 ,ce n'toit pas non plus un oiseau1 quoiqu'il et t rapport aux oiseaux palmipdes par un grand naturaliste,b4 ,which position he supports as follows3-- ,footnote ,b3 ,blumenbach4 7#a7 ,un oiseau auroit des ctes plus larges1 et munies chacune d'une apophyse rcurrente,c2 son metatarse n'auroit form qu'un seul os1 et n'auroit pas t compos d'autanut d'os qu'il a de doigts4 ,these1 though they may not be characters which are those of birds1 are certainly not eminently reptilian4 ,the elongated form of the tarsals in birds is peculiar1 but quite functional1 as may be seen among the ,penguins1 where1 when the so-called tarso-metatarsal bone is no longer erect1 it becomes much shorter1 and is nearly separated into three distinct bones4 ,the cretaceous ,pterodactyles appear to have this bone exactly like that of birds4 ,footnote ,c3 ,this shown in other specimens since figured1 and in the specimen from ,stonesfield in the ,oxford ,museum4 7#b7 ,son aile n'auroit eu que trois divisions aprs l'avantbras1 et non pas cinq comme celle-ce4 ,this is a difference1 but a difference of detail only1 and not a reptilian character4 ,the creatures have wings2 and no reptile known1 from recent or fossil specimens1 has wings4 ,the general plan of the wing1 though very unlike1 approximates to that of a bird4 ,most birds have two phalanges in the long finger1 though some have three4 ,one ,pterodactyle is described as having only two phalanges in the wing-finger1 while most of the ,german specimens appear to have four phalanges4 ,in birds the longest finger appears to be the middle one1 while in ,pterodactyles it is the innermost one4 7#c7 ,son bassin auroit eu une toute autre tendue et sa queue osseuse un toute autre forme2 elle seroit largie1 et non pas grle et conique4 ,the pelvis of ,pterodactyle is not reptilian1 and no living reptile has a pelvis like it4 ,it is not unlike the pelvis of a ,monotreme1 but the ilium is more ,avian4 ,it resembles the pelvis of ,dicynodon4 ,and the discovery of a long-tailed bird-like the ,archopteryx shows that the tail is like that of old birds1 even if it also presents some analogy in form to that of certain reptiles and mammals4 7#d7 ,il n'y auroit pas eu de dents au bec2 les dents des harles ne tiennent qu' l'enveloppe corne1 et non la charpente osseuse4 ,this is not a reptilian character4 ,among reptiles some tribes have teeth1 others want them2 and among mammals some animals are without teeth1 though they are so characteristic of the class4 ,it is an anomaly that birds should all be toothless4 ,and so1 without citing the supposed teeth of ,archopteryx1 it may be affirmed that it would be no more remarkable for some birds to have teeth than it is for some mammals and reptiles to be without them4 7#e7 ,les vertbres du cou auroient t plus nombreuses4 ,aucun oiseau n'en a moins de neuf2 les palmipdes1 en particulier1 en ont depuis douze jusqu' vingt-trois1 et l'on n'en voit ici que six ou tout au plus sept4 ,this is a variation of detail such as1 had it occurred among birds1 would hardly have been deemed evidence of their affinities4 ,when the variation of the neck-vertebr ranges from #bc to #i1 the further reduction of the number to #g becomes insignificant1 and does not show that the animal was a reptile4 7#f7 ,au contraire1 les vertbres du dos l'auroient t beau-coup moins4 ,il semble qu'il y en ait plus de vingt1 et les oiseaux en ont de sept dix1 ou tout au plus onze4 ,this modification is obviously the result of smaller development of the pelvic bones from front to back1 and hence of the small number of vertebr in the sacrum4 ,it does not support the reference of ,pterodactyles to the class of reptiles4 ,speaking of the teeth1 it is said1 ,elles sont toutes simples1 coniques1 et peu prs semblables entre elles comme dans les crocodiles1 les monitors1 et d'autres lzards4 ,the teeth of ,pterodactyles are 7in the skull7 for the most part in the premaxillary bones1 in which it is so characteristic for the teeth of animals to1 be merely conical and simple4 ,therefore it would have been difficult to imagine the teeth to have been anything but what they are1 whatever the affinities of the ,pterodactyle might be4 ,it is remarked1 ,la longueur du cou est proportione celle de la tte4 ,on y voit cinq vertbres grandes et prismatiques comme celles des oiseaux long cou1 et une plus petite se montre chaque extrmit4 ,this adds nothing to the evidence for its reptilian character4 ,ce qui est le plus fait pour tonner1 c'est que cette longue tte et ce long cou soient ports sur un si petit corps2 les oiseaux seuls offrent de semblable proportions1 et sans doute c'est1 avec la longueur du grand doigt1 ce qui avoit determin quelques naturalistes rapporter notre animal cette classe4 ,nor is this evidence that the animal was a reptile4 ,and in many minor matters ,cuvier is careful to show how their modifications resemble those of birds2 and when this is not so1 birds are the only animals from which he finds them varying4 ,and the few suggestions which are thrown out respecting their affinities with lizards are upon points which are also common to birds4 ,thus what ,cuvier did was to distinguish these animals from birds1 and incidentally to show that their organization was a modification of that of the ,avian class4 ,and the legitimate inference would have been that their systematic place was near the birds1 and not that they were reptiles4 ,but in ,germany ,cuvier's views on ,pterodactyles have by no means been submissively received2 and great anatomists1 since he wrote1 have propounded and defended views as various as those of the anatomists who preceded him1 and with no less confidence in the results of their science4 ,in the brief space at my command it would be impossible to do justice to the works of this array of philosophers1 and therefore ,i present in a somewhat condensed version the epitome of their conclusions given by ,hermann von ,meyer in his ,reptilien aus dem ,lithographischen ,schiefer der ,jura4 ,they form a commentary on the casts of ,solenhofen ,pterodactyles contained in the ,woodwardian ,museum4 ,smmerring regarded the ,pterodactyle as an unknown kind of bat1 and thought that ,cuvier was misled by ,collini's imperfect description4 ,he believed that he found in them different kinds of teeth as in mammals2 and regarded them as differing from bats chiefly in having larger eye-holes1 a longer neck1 four fingers and four toes1 a longer metatarsus1 and in having but one elongated finger2 and found the closest analogue of the fingers in ,pteropus marginatus of ,bengal4 ,and although inclined to place the ,pterodactyle between ,pteropus and ,galeopithecus1 he suspects from the bird-like characters of the head and feet that its true place is intermediate between mammals and birds4 ,oken,d4 ,footnote ,d3 ,isis1 #ahah1 p4 #eea4 ,oken reasoned carefully so far as his materials went4 ,he dwells much on the analogy of the wing to that of a bat1 and seems to suspect that the marsupial bones would hereafter be found2 and1 excepting the head1 finds that the other parts of the skeleton have their corresponding bones among mammals4 ,afterwards1 when he saw the specimens at ,munich1 he was so much struck at finding the quadrate bone of ,lacertian form1 though ,smmerring could not detect it even with a microscope1 that he is shaken in his mammalian faith1 and inclines to consider the animal a reptile4 ,wagler,e4 ,footnote ,e3 ,system der ,amphibien1 #ahcj1 p4 #ge4 ,wagler was impressed with the resemblance of the jaws and the rounded back part of the skull to those of ,dolphins1 and so far as the head went conceives it to have had nothing in common with ,lizards4 ,he recognizes mammalian characters in the pelvis and sternum1 and fails1 like ,smmerring1 to detect a quadrate bone1 and finds the sum of the characters like those of other extinct animals1 such as ,ichthyosaurus and ,plesiosaurus1 suggesting for it a position between mammals and birds4 ,he supposed it unable to fly1 that it never left the water1 but swam about on the surface like a swan1 and sought its food on the sea-bottom4 ,he imagined the long arms to have been used after the fashion of turtles and penguins to row the body along2 while to the claws he attributes the function of holding the females in the generative process4 ,goldfuss,f4 ,footnote ,f3 ,nova ,acta ,acad4 ,leopold41 #ahca1 ,vol4 ,,xv4 ,pt4 ,i4 p4 #ajc4 sees in ,pterodactyle an indication of the course that nature took in changing the reptilian organization to that of birds and mammals4 ,the less important organs1 those of motion1 assimilate partly to those of the bird and partly to those of the bats1 but always preserve the fundament reptile type and reptile number of bones4 ,the skull1 fluctuating in character between the monitor and crocodile1 hides its reptile nature under the outer form of the bird1 but retains the teeth4 ,to change the skull into a bird's skull it would only be necessary that a few separate elements should be blended together1 and that a few peculiar bones should be removed4 ,the length of the neck1 varying only in a few species1 is a deviation from the reptile type1 and indicates an approximation to the structure of 'the bird2 but the number of the vertebr remains constant notwithstanding the increased length4 ,the fundamental plan of the crocodile may be recognised in all the important parts of the vertebr4 ,the body of the reptile1 to be enabled to fly1 would need a larger breast and a stronger structure of the fore-limbs4 ,the shoulder-blade of the reptile1 with its extremities forming the glenoid cavity1 is necessarily smaller and prolonged backward1 and altered to resemble that of a bird4 ,the scapula only formed the back part of the glenoid cavity1 but it is thick and strong1 suggesting an affinity with the bats4 ,the breast-bone1 in the form of a shield1 is changing into that of a bird2 as are the ribs1 which are attached in a peculiar way to the vertebral column4 ,it is really the strong sternum of the ,chameleon1 with moveable dorsal vertebr4 ,the whole chest is supported by the peculiar continuation of the wings of the pubic bones 7,schambein74 ,the ischiac and pubic bones resemble those of the ,chameleon1 but the ilium runs a little down1 like that of a bird1 and is only slightly connected with two sacral vertebr1 as in reptiles1 prolonging itself a little upward and forward1 as in mammals4 ,the wings of the pubic bones exist in the ,turtle and ,monitor1 but of small extent2 they are also represented in the mammals by the upward development of the pubic bones in those families1 genera1 and species1 in which nature has indicated by variety of shape1 or peculiarities of development1 or by affinities with reptiles1 quite a new type and capacity for variation within certain limits1 which is especially the case with certain ,rodents and ,opossums1 and ,monotremes4 ,it would not be astonishing to find in ,pterodactyles the marsupial bones4 ,and indeed the ,pterodactylus crassirostris has a small tongue-shaped bone1 probably belonging to the pelvis4 ,the less important part of the skeleton1 the tail1 is formed precisely as in mammals1 and is identical with that of the bats4 ,both the thigh and shin are mammalian1 and only the foot retains the same number of parts as in reptiles4 ,this animal was enabled by means of the pelvic bones and the long hind-legs to sit like the squirrels4 ,we should regard this position as natural but for the long wing-finger hanging far down the sides4 ,if it were to creep along it would have the same difficulties as a bat1 and the length and weight of the head1 as well as the proportional weakness of the bind limb1 make it improbable that they progressed by leaping4 ,these animals made use of their claws only to hang on to rocks and trees and to climb up steep cliffs4 ,they could fly with their wings1 and keep themselves aloft in order to catch insects or sea animals4 ,the wide throat and the weak and high supports of the jaw-bone make it probable that they only used their teeth to capture their prey and not to mince it4 ,by means of their long neck1 which they usually bore curved backward in order to keep their balance1 they could stretch out their head to their prey and change their centre of gravity1 and so fly in different positions4 ,the fundamental type of the ,crocodile and ,monitor leads us to suspect that they had a skin covered with scales4 ,the approximation to the shape of the ,bird makes it probable that they were feathered4 ,and the whole outline1 similar to that of the ,bat1 leads to the supposition that they were covered with hair1 like the ,monotremes4 ,goldfuss thinks he has got a clear insight into the covering of the body and the whole condition of the wing in examining the ,pt4 crassirostris4 ,and the soft state of the stone near the bones he attributes to the presence of the soft parts of the animal2 and supposes that on the original folds of the wing-membrane are to be seen tufts and bunches of curved hair directed downward and sideway,g4 ,and on the principal slab he finds evidence that the ,pterodactyle had a mane on the neck like a horse4 ,the tufts on the counter slab have some similarity with the feathers of the ostrich4 ,some very tender impressions on both plates still more resemble feathers4 ,he recognizes the outline and faint diverging rays of a bird's feather1 but never sees a strong quill4 ,the microscope1 instead of making the image clearer1 makes it1 on the contrary1 vanish1 because then the rough parts become prominent4 ,also on the slab which contains the ,pterodactylus medius,h1 are seen numerous lines and fibres diverging like a bird's feathers4 ,and on the upper part of the belly is the appearance of a scanty texture of hairs and feathers4 ,the visible marks of two cylinders of the thickness of a quill1 made of thin substance and filled with limestone1 he would regard as quills if there were clearer marks of their feathers to be seen4 ,as a note upon this von ,meyer says1 after examining the slabs1 that the particles considered by ,goldfuss to be hairs and feathers rest upon appearances not only to be seen in the vicinity of ,pterodactyles1 but which occur upon many other kinds of petrifactions that have nothing in common with the ,pterodactyle2 and that the roughnesses of the slab have nothing to do with the folds of the wing or the muscles4 ,footnote ,g3 ,this is represented in ,pl4 #g1 #h of his memoir1 loc4 cit4 ,footnote ,h3 ,pl4 #f1 ,nova ,afta ,acad4 ,leopold1 ,vol4 ,,xv4 ,pt4 #a4 ,wagner,i ,footnote ,i3 ,abhandl4 ,bayerischen ,acad4 #aheb1 ,vol4 ,,vi4 is so convinced that the ,pterodactyles are ,amphibians approximating to the ,saurians1 that he does not think it necessary to go into any controversy in the matter2 but he acknowledges that their forms sometimes present peculiarities of bird and mammal4 ,the head especially shows a blending of the bird and reptile types4 ,its outline1 particularly when seen from above1 is that of a long-beaked water-bird4 ,and the long interval between the nose-holes and the tip of the jaw1 and the peculiar fact of a hole between the nose and eye-holes1 and the want of the continuation of the coronoid of the lower jaw1 rather resemble a water-bird than a ,saurian4 ,but the presence and the form of the teeth show it to be a ,saurian2 and not only the teeth1 but the configuration of the whole back part of the skull1 reproduces the type of the ,monitor4 ,the sclerotic circle is a peculiar mark of birds and saurians4 ,very peculiar1 however1 is the extremely short back part of the skull2 and the articulation of the lower jaw1 stretched far forward and united just under the middle of the eye-hole4 ,the more or less long neck1 which may assume the form of an ,s1 deviates very much from the short stiff neck of reptiles1 and is quite bird-like1 the neck-vertebr of which those of the ,pterodactyle closely resemble in shape2 while their constant number of seven reminds us of mammals and crocodiles4 ,the neck has the same flexibility as in a bird4 ,the short and weak trunk-vertebr are in such disproportion to the length and strength of the neck-vertebr as is never met with even in the birds and mammals which have the longest necks4 ,the trunk-vertebr are completely separated from each other1 and may be divided into dorsal1 lumbar1 and sacral vertebr4 ,the transverse processes of the back-vertebr are notched out like those of the crocodile4 ,the tail is short in most species1 and this is a deviation from the type of the ,saurians1 and an approximation to birds and to many mammals4 ,but there are some kinds with very long tails1 as is the case with mammals and usually with ,saurians4 ,but the vertebr of these long-tailed ,pterodactyles deviate very much from those of ,saurians4 ,and while the ,saurian vertebr are provided with long transverse processes and upper and lower spinous-processes 7,dorn-,fortstzen71 they seem in the ,pterodactyle to be almost devoid of processes and resemble those of mammals1 on the tails of which these processes soon disappear4 ,in a certain point of view we could say of the vertebral column of the ,pterodactyle1 that it has borrowed the neck from the bird1 the trunk from the reptile1 and the tail from the mammal4 ,the ribs are connected to the transverse processes as in crocodiles1 except with the atlas and axis4 ,quite in the type of the ,saurians are the abdominal ribs1 which are wanting to all birds and mammals1 but often occur in the ,lacertian order4 ,the structure of the shoulder and breast-bone separate the ,pterodactyle from the mammal1 these parts being formed after the type of the ,birds and ,saurians1 the characters of which are blended together4 ,the small and elongated shoulder-blade1 like the coracoid bone1 belongs to the type of the bird rather than to that of the ,saurians1 of which1 in reference to the last-named bone1 only crocodiles have a similar one4 ,the breast-bone1 by its large expansion1 points to the crocodiles1 but at the same time1 by the want of the keel1 points to the ostrich-like birds1 save that it is proportionally larger and wider than in these4 ,the ,pterodactyle1 in common with the crocodile1 wants the patella4 ,the pelvis is formed on the type of the ,saurians1 although the ilium1 by length and form1 points somewhat to the mammals4 ,the length and delicate form of the long bones of the limb1 as well as the larger development of the fore-arm than of the upper-arm1 and larger development of the lower thigh than of the upper thigh1 and the thinness and elegance and shortness of the 8fibula 7,wadenbein7 have the characters of birds4 ,the length of the middle hand metacarpals resembles that of birds1 but its form in ,pterodactyle is conformable to that of mammals4 ,the first three fingers have the form and condition of the phalanges of lizards4 ,the phalanges form the series #b1 #c1 and #d4 ,the fourth1 or air-finger1 on the contrary1 is of a peculiar type1 of which no analogue is found in other animals1 unless a somewhat similar arrangement be accredited to the bats4 ,it is of enormous length1 composed of four parts and without a claw4 ,the hind-leg is1 in proportion to the fore-leg1 weak1 and in general does not take the bird-form1 but that of a ,saurian4 ,it has five toes1 with unusual arrangement of the phalanges into the series #a1 #e1 #d1 #c1 #b4 ,one toe has no nail1 and the others have claws weaker than those of the hand4 ,it can hardly be supposed that the animal lived in the water4 ,all ,saurians that live either in the water or on land are short-legged2 it is the same with the swimming birds4 ,but the ,pterodactyle has its hind-legs as long as a land or air-bird2 and as in these1 the shin especially exceeds the length of the thigh4 ,at the same time the toes1 when they are in their natural position1 were so close together that we may suppose the animal not to have been web-footed4 ,the great development of the hand1 by means of the long middle hand and especially of the enormous length of the air-finger1 makes it probable that it was the chief organ of flight1 as in birds and bats2 also deviating in a peculiar manner from both these types1 the long air-finger served to expand the wing-membrane1 which extended from the upper part of the finger to the trunk1 and which in all probability did not touch the hind-legs4 ,this we infer from the circumstance that the animal1 in a position with the organs of flight folded up1 was not supported like the bat on its four feet1 but stood upright on its hind-legs like a bird4 ,such a position presumes the same freedom in moving the hind extremities as with birds2 only in such a position could the animal walk on without being hindered by its flying organs when they were folded up like those of a bird4 ,only in such an upright position could the animal keep upright its unusually long head with the long and strong neck and be kept in balance1 the neck being able to take a sigmoid curve like that of a bird4 ,wagner concludes3 ,by these means we have recognised in the ,pterodactyle a ,saurian1 but of a habitude which greatly removes him from all others of his kind1 and approximates him to birds4 ,excepting in ability to fly1 he has nothing in common with the birds4 ,the opinion 'that the animal is half crocodile half monitor disguised as a bird1 but intending to be a bird1' is therefore not only a paradox but also false4 ,with more truth1 but less phantasy1 we could say that the ,pterodactyle was a ,saurian in transition to the ,birds4 ,quenstedt,j4 ,footnote ,j3 ,ueber ,pterodactylus ,suevicus4 ,tubingen #ahee4 ,in the long thigh1 with the long neck1 ,quenstedt sees evidence that the animal was able to walk upright1 being probably still more upright than birds1 since the great disproportion between the neck on the one hand1 and the thigh on the other1 could not have allowed a more appropriate position4 ,at the same time he makes a question1 ,did it go on four feet8 ,but a little later1 in his book1 ,sonst und ,jetzt1 #ahef1 he gives a sketch of the animal resting on its four legs2 and remarks1 ,the position upon four feet is however hypothetical1 but is probable4 ,it had its wings folded back4 ,the slightly curved and thin bones of the middle hand probably served to support the flying-membrane1 and had therefore the same function as the spur-bone in the bats4 ,finally1 he says in his book1 der ,jura1 p4 #hac1 ,perhaps this animal walked from time to time on four legs1 being then supported by the fore-end of the metatarsal bone4 ,burmeister,k4 ,footnote ,k3 ,beleuchtung uniger ,pterodactylus arten4 #ahee4 entirely rejects ,quenstedt's opinions with regard to their upright position4 ,he makes the following remarks3 ',the animal walked on the free fore-toes and bore the wings like a bat1 though with the body not in an upright position like a bird1 but four-footed4 ,the hind-foot is much too small for such an upright position1 and the fore-foot much too strongly developed4 ,i therefore believe that the ,pterodactyle could much better have walked four-footed than a bat1 because it possessed so much better developed fore-feet4' ,in the length of the tibia ,burmeister sees no reason for the upright position1 but1 as he says1 only a means for the wide expansion of the flying-membrane2--and an endeavour in walking on four feet to bring the leg into the necessary harmony with the arm1 which is so much elongated with the flat-hand4 ,hermann von ,meyer,l4 ,footnote ,l3 ,fauna der ,vorwelt4 ,reptilien aus dem ,lithographischen schiefer4 ,frankfurt am ,main4 #ahei4 pp4 #ae-bc4 ,the skull of the ,pterodactyle can only be compared with those of birds and lizards4 ,the form is essentially ,avian1 and the sutures are indistinct or obliterated as in birds1 while in reptiles they are persistent ,the temporal bone enters into the formation of the reservoir for the brain1 which is eminently characteristic of birds and quite different from anything found in lizards4 ,the snout resembles a bird in being chiefly formed by the intermaxillary bone1 which bounds the front of the anterior nares2 and1 as in birds1 the bone extends backward between the eye-cavities to the frontal bone4 ,the corresponding intermaxillary ridge of the ,monitor is of less extent4 ,the frontal-bone forms the highest part of the skull1 and is similar to that of birds4 ,the principal frontal is double1 and forms the upper and hind part of the cavity for the eye1 and covered the greater part of the large brain1 composed of two hemispheres1 in which ,oken long ago saw a similarity to the higher animals4 ,the arched form of the back part of the skull is bird-like4 ,the double parietal adjoins the principal frontal1 and is conditioned like the parietal in birds4 ,the supra-occipital is single as in birds1 expanded1 and forms the part of the skull which extends furthest back4 ,from the form of the back part of the skull it may be concluded that the foramen magnum was situated as in birds1 and that the head and neck were moved as in birds1 and not as in reptiles and mammals4 ,the temporal bone rests upon the parietal and frontal1 and forms much of the temporal foss4 ,its anterior border does not appear to enter into the margin of the orbital cavity as in birds1 but seems to be replaced by the post-frontal1 which resembles that of the ,chameleon4 ,its hindmost branch1 which can hardly be supposed to be the jugal1 forms the outer boundary of the temporal foss by uniting with a process which is probably part of the mastoid4 ,a similar closing of the cavity for the temporal muscles is also to be found in birds4 ,the jugal and maxillary do not follow the bird type4 ,the jugal consists of a single bone which forms the greater part of the anterior and inferior boundary of the cavity of the eye1 which is surrounded with bones1 as in ,dragons and ,iguana4 ,in those birds in which the cavity of the eye is surrounded with bones the jugal does not enter into it4 ,as in lizards1 at its upper end the jugal is commonly connected with the lachrymal1 which bone is like that of a bird4 ,a bone1 which appears to be the pre-frontal1 enters into the back of the nasal aperture4 ,the nostril is double and often of large size4 ,the perforation in the skull between the orbit and nares is bird-like4 ,the quadrate bone is not quadratic as in birds1 but cylindrical and shaft-like1 as in the ,chameleon4 ,the articulation of the quadrate with the lower jaw is placed further forward than in birds and reptiles4 ,the lower jaw1 but for the teeth1 has great similarity with that of a bird4 ,among reptiles its nearest resemblance is with ,chameleons and ,turtles4 ,the hyoid is more bird-like than reptile-like4 ,ribs and vertebr4 ,it is uncertain whether the ,pterodactyle had lumbar vertebr4 ,if they are wanting1 therein the animals resemble birds1 of which we are reminded in the short and stiff back and moveable neck4 ,pterodactyles possess a smaller number of neck-vertebr and a larger number of back-vertebr than birds4 ,the long neck-vertebr are paralleled by those of water-birds1 by the ,giraffe1 the ,camel1 ,protosaurus and ,tanystrophus4 ,there are #g cervical vertebr1 the #ast very short1 #bnd not longer1 but rather shorter than those which follow4 ,there are in ,pterodactyles from #ab to #af dorsal vertebr1 while birds have never more than #aa4 ,it is not certain whether all ,pterodactyles have an os sacrum2 most have it1 and therein resemble ,mammals1 ,birds1 and some fossil ,saurians4 ,in ,pterodactylus dubius and ,p4 grandipelvis and ,p4 ,kochi there are #e or #f vertebr in the sacrum4 ,in birds the sacral vertebr vary from #e to #bb2 in bats the number is from #e to #f4 ,the short tails of ,pterodactyles are more like those of mammals than birds2 they include from #aj to #ae tail-vertebr4 ,in birds there are from #f to #aj tail-vertebr4 ,rhamphorhynchus has #ch-dj tail-vertebr1 secured between thread-bones like those in the tail of rats4 ,the dorsal ribs are reptile-like4 ,in herbivorous mammals and birds they are broader4 ,a few species have the first pair of ribs large4 ,the abdominal ribs belong neither to birds nor mammals1 but are reptilian4 ,in ,rhamphorhynchus ,gemmingi there are #f pairs of sternal ribs4 ,the sternum is bird-like1 somewhat resembling lizards4 ,it consists of a simple flat bone1 but without the keel of a bird's sternum4 ,it is relatively smaller than in birds1 is broader than long1 and therefore comparable with ,struthious birds4 ,they were not able flyers1 since the part to which the muscles for flight should be affixed is wanting4 ,and for the same reason they could not have been wandering animals4 ,but ,moles possess a keel on the breast-bone1 which therefore is no evidence of flight4 ,and in swimming-birds which do not fly the keel is much developed2 and in swimming-birds the sternum is also long1 so that neither length nor keel prove flight4 ,so far as the evidence from the sternum goes1 they were neither water-birds1 nor diggers1 but denizens of the air4 ,in ,rhamphorhynchus ,gemmingi1 besides the usual breast-bone1 there is a plate with breast-ribs uniting the sternum with the dorsal ribs2 they are cartilaginous1 or horny1 as in birds4 ,the scapula and coracoid present the closest resemblance with those of a bird1 and only deviate in the coracoid not being inserted in the breast-bone in the manner of birds,m4 ,it at first seemed that ,rhamphorhynchus differed from ,pterodactyle in having the scapula and coracoid anchylosed4 ,in ,r4 ,gemmingi the bones are either separated or only slightly united4 ,footnote ,m3 ,see however ,pl4 #a and #b of this memoir4 ,oken and ,goldfuss thought that the scapula consists of an upper and under part1 as in lizards4 ,von ,meyer sees nothing of the kind4 ,the humerus presents no striking similarity with birds1 and differs from bats4 ,the carpus is more reptile-like4 ,it consists of two rows of small bones4 ,in birds there is one row made up of two bones4 ,the pteroid bone4 ,von ,meyer regards it as having supported the wing-membrane in flight4 ,there has been a good deal of difference of opinion about it1 some thinking it1 with ,quenstedt1 an ossified tendon2 others1 like ,wagner and ,burmeister1 regarding it as an essential part of the ,pterodactyle skeleton4 ,von ,meyer regards its extent as indicating the extent of the wing-membrane4 ,see p4 #db4 ,metacarpus4 ,in length the metacarpus resembles that of the ,ruminants1 in which however it consists of but one bone2 while in ,pterodactyles there is a separate bone for each of the four fingers2 they are closely united together without being blended4 ,in some ,pterodactyles the metacarpals of the short fingers are as fine as hairs1 so that it is impossible that they should have articular facets on the carpus4 ,in ,ornithopterus the metacarpus has some resemblance with that of the bird1 but the articulation with the phalanges of the finger for flight is stiff4 ,in ,pterodactylus and ,rhamphorhynchus there is a free articulation4 ,burmeister remarks that the chief articulation of the wing in bats is with the carpus1 while in ,pterodactyle the articulation is with the end of the metacarpus4 ,the hand4 ,von ,meyer finds four fingers4 ,it was formerly supposed that the order of the phalanges was #b1 #c1 #d1 #d1 but in the fly-finger this is not the case1 ,ornithopterus having but two4 ,the number of joints in the other fingers is quite as irregular4 ,in ,pt4 longicollum the thumb consists of but one joint4 ,the ,ilium is more mammalian and avian than reptilian4 ,pubis4 ,the pubis appears to have been excluded from the glenoid cavity1 as in ,crocodiles4 ,it is more mammal-like than bird-like1 and is to be compared with the marsupial bones4 ,the femur4 ,in certain ,pterodactyles the proximal condyle of the femur resembles birds2 but in other ,pterodactyles the bone is more mammal-like in its straightness1 and development of the upper condyle1 and in the presence of a trochanter4 ,the tibia and fibula may be compared1 from their great length1 with birds and flying vertebrate animals4 ,the fibula is style-shaped1 like that of a bird1 the lower part being wanting2 while in bats the upper part is wanting4 ,the tarsus1 of two rows1 is best compared with that of reptiles4 ,the number of constituent bones has not been definitely determined4 ,the metatarsus shows a certain return from the bird type to that of reptiles4 ,foot4 ,von ,meyer never finds more than four toes1 and sometimes a stump of a fifth4 ,as a whole1 the foot is ,saurian-like4 ,it differs from lizards in the number of toes1 and approximates to ,crocodiles4 ,in ,pterodactylus longirostris the formula of the toes is #b1 #c1 #d1 #e1 with a stump of two joints2--like lizards1 if we abstract the outer toe2 and like birds with four toes2 but they are liable to variations4 ,in ,pterodactylus scolopaciceps and ,p4 ,kochi the formula is #b1 #c1 #c1 #d joints4 ,in ,winkler's specimen of ,p4 ,kochi there is also a stump of three joints4 ,in ,pterodactylus micronyx the formula is #b1 #c1 #c1 #c1 and a stump of two joints4 ,in ,p4 longicollum the number appears to be different from all the foregoing4 ,the stump was attached to the side of the outer toe4 ,wagner1 in ,p4 ,kochi1 supposed it to be on the inner side1 and so gave a reverse arrangement to the toes4 ,the stump may be compared with that of some ,chelonians1 in which it is not furnished with a claw4 ,there is a difference from birds in the claws being much less developed4 ,it has a true reptile foot4 ,in bats the toes are of equal length4 ,von ,meyer thinks the hind-legs did not enable it to walk on the land4 ,in some ,pterodactyles the flying-membrane is faintly seen4 ,the presence of feathers might be inferred from there being but one finger for flighty as in birds2 but the function of feathers is subserved by the long and stiff finger4 ,if it had been covered with scales1 as was supposed by ,cuvier1 some traces of them would be found4 ,the skin was probably naked1 and had no connection with the hind-legs as it has in bats2 in this respect resembling birds4 ,the condition of the several parts of the skeleton completely proves that the ,pterodactyle was a reptile4 ,its head1 neck1 shoulder1 and back1 resemble a bird2 while there are1 on the other hand1 some striking resemblances with the reptile in the pelvis1 tail1 and articular parts of the limbs4 ,sometimes the characters of the two classes run side by side1 as in the skull1 the fore-limbs1 and especially in the hind-limbs1 where the shin of a ,bird is connected with the foot of a ,saurian4 ,the parts in which it corresponds with birds show that ,pterodactyles also were flying animals4 ,that we should be entitled to conclude1 from the hollow state of the bones1 that they belonged to flying animals1 is sufficiently proved by ,blumenbach1 ,buckland1 ,mantell1 ,owen having mistaken them for bones of birds4 ,the most absolute proof that it was a flying animal is the pneumatic character of its bones4 ,this condition was discerned by me in some ,pterodactyle bones from the ,lias of ,franken 7,jahrb4 fr ,mineral1 #ahcg1 p4 #caf71 and was afterwards established by ,owen in the ,pterodactyles from the ,chalk of ,england4 ,this structure was previously only known in birds4 ,and the supposition readily follows that in the respiratory process there was some similarity between the ,pterodactyle and the ,birds4 ,they have the proportions of upper-arm and fore-arm which characterize birds of great flight1 the humerus short and the fore-arm long2 hence it may be presumed that ,pterodactyles could fly well4 ,from the absence and presence of the bony sclerotic ring in the eye1 it may be supposed that the ,pterodactyles were active in the day-time1 while ,rhamphorhynchus was nocturnal4 ,after this statement von ,meyer gives a discursive summary1 in which his views of the classification of reptiles in general and of ,pterodactyles in particular are epitomized4 ,and then goes on to combat the views of people who have departed from his classification and attempted to set up classifications of their own2 and cites a number of authors who1 labouring at the vertebrata1 have endeavoured to find a resting-place in their systems for the ,pterodactyle4 ,but the chief thing we learn of von ,meyer's own views is1 that in #ahcj he published a classification of extinct ,saurians1 dividing them into those with limbs like the larger and heavier land-mammals1 those with fin-like limbs1 and those with a flying-finger4 ,which divisions have been widely adopted1 though authors have sometimes given them other names than those by which they were first made known4 ,von ,meyer has freely stated the facts about the ,pterodactyle1 and draws the conclusion that the animal was a reptile2 but how such a conclusion was obtained from such facts is a matter on which his pages are silent4 ,one seems to hear the chirrup of the bird in almost every paragraph4 ,the head is in the main a bird's head2 the pectoral girdle and the sternal ribs are those of a bird2 and very few are the structures in which some reminder of the bird is not present2 and in their bones he discovered the pneumatic characteristic and inferred1 for the animals bird-like lungs4 ,how1 then1 comes it that the ,pterodactyle is a reptile8 ,we can only suppose the answer to be1 ,because if the head and pectoral girdle and other bones had been reptilian it would have been a bird4 99 99 99 99 99 ,in the views here epitomized it is difficult always to make out the logical foundations of the conclusions arrived at4 ,sometimes they have no foundations1 and sometimes they represent the different aspects in which a truth presents itself to minds differently constituted or differently conversant with the structures of living animals4 ,in now stating my own views ,i shall avail myself of the example of some previous writers1 and attempt to investigate the ,pterodactyle as though they had not written4 ,and then1 having placed before him all the theories that are known1 the reader will be able to choose the theory that pleases him best1 if indeed he needs one4 ,much of the discrepancy of opinion that exists is probably due to the use of the inductive method of thought for the discovery of fundamental principles in classification4 ,in palontology1 where the types are more generalized than are living forms1 it must always be difficult to reason from the known to the unknown4 ,the known is always more or less incomparable with the unknown2 and there can be no reason for inferring that the specialities of structure which now accompany specialities in organization would justify us in inferring for the animal1 in which the structures formerly were united1 the combined organizations of the living animals in which they are now found4 ,on any hypothesis of evolution it would be allowed that the special modifications of a group were attained subsequently to the common plan of the larger group to which it belongs1 and are entirely to be attributed to the function which the necessities or organization of the animal caused its structures to subserve4 ,inductive thought may sometimes discover function from structure1 but never makes more than an approximate guess when it endeavours to determine fundamental organization from osseous structures which are not fundamental4 ,and before a naturalist can say1 since an animal has for instance a tail like a mammal that in so far it must be affiliated to the mammalia1 he must have determined why the mammalian tail has its peculiar characters1 and whether it is compatible with any other common plan of organization4 ,and perhaps it might with equal reason be considered reptilian4 ,therefore ,i prefer at firsts instead of reasoning from the details of structure1 to adopt the priori method1 and ask1 not what the ,pterodactyle is like in its several bones1 but what common plan it had whereon its hard structures were necessarily moulded4 ,for ,i imagine1 if it can be determined what the nervous and respiratory and circulatory structures of the ,pterodactyle were1 it becomes a secondary matter to know whether the phalanges are like a lizard's1 or the pelvis like that of a mammal4 ,if the animal is asserted to be a mammal1 a reptile1 or a bird1 we ought to be able to adduce evidence that it had the soft parts which are deemed distinctive of the selected class4 ,this no one has done or attempted to do4 ,hereafter it will be necessary to describe the ,pterodactyle's brain4 ,there is no organ more distinctive between hot-blooded animals on the one hand1 and cold-blooded animals on the other1 than the brain4 ,in the cold-blooded groups1 or those in which respiration is feeble and circulation imperfect1 that is to say1 in existing fishes1 amphibians1 and reptiles1 the parts of the brain are arranged one behind another1 so that when looked upon from above1 a portion called the optic lobes intervenes between the anterior masses called the cerebrum and the posterior mass called the cerebellum4 ,in the hot-blooded groups1 or those with an enormous extent of lung-surface for oxidation of the blood and a four-celled heart for its rapid circulation1 that is to say1 in birds and mammals1 the front part of the brain called the cerebrum is immensely developed in proportion to the other parts1 and abuts against the cerebellum and more or less completely covers the optic lobes1 which in birds are squeezed out to the sides4 ,the ,pterodactyle brain is of this latter kind4 ,and it being taken as a postulate that this kind of brain is the product of the organization which produces hot blood1 it follows that the ,pterodactyle was a hot-blooded animal4 ,again1 the ,pterodactyle has perforations for pneumatic cells in many of the bones4 ,there is no structure in the animal kingdom more distinctive of a ,class of animals than air-cells perforating the limb-bones4 ,they are connected with a peculiar kind of lung and heart--those of the bird2 for in this ,class the bronchial tubes open on the outer surface of the lungs into air-cells1 which are prolonged through the body into the bones4 ,they follow the blood-vessels1 and are most developed in the part of the body most used4 ,in some lizards1 as the ,chameleon1 the sack-like lung at its distal termination is as simple as the air-cells of a bird2 but those air-cells are not comparable with the bird's air-cells1 since they are not prolongations of the bronchial tubes through the walls of the lungs4 ,and it cannot be inferred that a reptile with wings would develop air-cells like those of a bird3 in the first place1 because those mammals which have wings do not develop air-cells2 and1 in the second place1 because there is nothing in existing nature to lead any one to think that reptiles might have wings4 ,the mammalian lung is better comparable to that of a bird than is the ,chameleon lung1 and therefore the air-cell structure might with better reason have been anticipated to occur in the ,chiroptera than in a ,lizard-ally1 if it were dependent on the development of wings4 ,moreover1 among ,struthious birds the legs have more of the air-cell prolongations than the wings4 ,therefore1 being a peculiar ,avian structure which only exists in association with the ,avian heart and lung1 it follows that because the ,pterodactyle had the pneumatic foramina it also had the structures of which they are the evidence1 viz4 lung and heart formed on the bird plan4 ,thus ,pterodactyles have a nervous system of the bird type4 ,that kind of brain only exists in association with a four-celled heart and hot blood4 ,they have a respiratory organization which is only met with among birds4 ,with that respiratory apparatus is always associated a four-celled heart and hot blood1 which it would necessarily produce4 ,and with that respiratory organization is always associated a brain of the type that the ,pterodactyle is found to possess4 ,therefore it is firmly indicated that the general plan of the most vital and important of the soft structures was similar to that of living birds4 ,this proposition will be incidentally proved in the following memoir1 in which it will be seen that with such a common plan1 is associated a diversity of details sufficient to demonstrate that these animals are not birds1 but constitute a new group of vertebrata of equal value with the birds--the sub-class1 ,ornithosauria4 ,,osteological ,,collection ,,illustrative ,,of ,,the ,,modifications ,,of ,,the ,,ornithosauria 7,,or ,,pterodactyles7 ,,in ,,the ,,cambridge ,,upper ,,greensand4 ,pectoral ,girdle4 ,,sternum4 ,pl4 #a1 fig4 #a4 ,case4 ,comp4 ,tablet4 ,j a #a ,the ,sternum is the key to the bony apparatus supporting the anterior limbs4 ,in the ,pterodactyles from the ,cambridge ,greensand it has been well figured and described by ,professor ,owen1 who enunciated its resemblance to the sternum of birds4 ,the sternum in ,pterodactyles from the ,lithographic ,slate1 shows its proportional size to the body4 ,the examples found in the ,cambridge ,greensand have as yet shown no evidence of a composite character like that attributed to ,rhamphorhynchus ,gemmingi4 ,the sternum consists of an expanded symmetrical shield having its lateral halves1 which are inclined to each other at a large angle 7about #aej71 contracted superiorly1 behind and immediately below the synovial cavities for the coracoids4 ,the vertical angular ridge in which the lateral portions of the sternum unite becomes elevated as it is followed anteriorly1 into a strong keel4 ,this keel or interpectoral process is highest in front of the articulations for the coracoids2 but the degree of elevation varies with the species4 ,it is prolonged upward and in front of the coracoids for some distance1 becoming very massive1 and the prolonged mass which is flattened from side to side1 reaches laterally to the outer margins of the coracoid articulations1 and on the visceral side a little between and over them4 ,the anterior crest of the keel shows the attachment of powerful muscles4 ,professor ,owen has observed that only in birds are distinct synovial cavities provided for the coracoids1 and that no reptile has a sternum showing characters like those seen in the ,pterodactyle4 ,these coracoid cavities are placed as in birds1 close together1 behind the manubrium1 which forms the hindermost part of the keel4 ,they are convex transversely1 concave from front to back as in birds1 and look upward at an angle of #ce1 their main direction being outward and a little backward4 ,professor ,owen recognises the function of the shield-shaped sternum in relation to the mechanism of respiration on the one hand1 and on the other hand1 for the attachment of pectoral muscles of great bulk and strength4 ,as is well known1 the muscles of the breast in most birds consist chiefly of the #ast1 #bnd1 and #crd pectoral muscles1 and the coraco-brachialis4 ,the peculiar form of the bird's sternum appears to be due to the vertical development of the second pectoral muscle1 since when the #ast and #crd muscles are dissected off1 the appearance presented nearly resembles that of the sternum in ,pterodactyles4 ,there can however be no doubt but that the third pectoral muscle1 which in most birds is but feebly developed1 attained a far greater bulk in the ,pterodactyle1 because there is evidence of its powerful insertion in the distal anterior face of the coracoid1 as well as of the great lateral extension of the sternal shield to which such a muscle must--by the analogy of birds--have been attached4 ,the peculiar lateral emargination of the sternum appears to be due to the anterior sternal termination of this muscle1 caused by the outward direction of the coracoid bone4 ,since the coracoids were developed outward and backward so much more than in birds1 it would happen1 from the apparent different direction of the second pectoral muscle1 that the first pectoral muscle which in birds skirts the furculum1 must have passed over the coracoid1 probably pulling on its inside in opposition to the third pectoral4 ,either a subdivision of this muscle or a distinct muscle in the same place1 in function corresponding to the subclavius muscle1 appears to have been powerfully attached from the anterior prolongation of the keel of the sternum to the front face of the coracoid4 ,it is improbable that the second pectoral muscle was undeveloped1 but merely directed differently to what it is in birds1 since1 as will be seen1 there is a process at the proximal end of the coracoid homologous with that which forms the pulley round which this muscle in birds works4 ,professor ,owen concludes his remarks by observing that the ,pterosaurian breast-bone is in the main formed on the ornithic type4 ,the muscles also appear to be similar to those of birds4 ,all the specimens are much mutilated1 but all show the distinctive post-coracoid lateral emarginations1 but as these are not seen in ,german ,pterodactyles they are to be regarded as characters of a peculiar sub-order and not as characteristics of the sub-class4 ,the example figured in this memoir and by ,professor ,owen is #b-e_/h inches in antero-posterior measurement1 probably about one third its entire length4 ,a small example in the collection of ,mr ,reed of ,york extends #a-a_/d inch in the same measurement1 and by the analogy of ,p4 suevicus was more than twice that length when perfect4 ,it is remarkable in that the coracoid facets look much less outward and much more backward than in the larger species4 ,the mammalian sternum is usually in many consecutive pieces like the vertebral column4 ,the types in which it attains any size as an expanded shield are ,cetaceans and the ,manatee1 but in these groups it has no keel and is not connected with the other bones of the pectoral girdle4 ,the proximal portion of the sternum of the ,mole is elongated and bird-like1 with the shield narrower than in the typical gallinaceous birds1 and with the keel similarly developed4 ,it is connected with the humerus by small sub-quadrate bones named clavicles placed at the sides of the proximal end4 ,the sternum in ,bats usually consists of a proximal and a distal part4 ,it is narrow except at the proximal-termination where it widens like the letter ,t or ,y2 and to the sides of the lateral prolongations are attached the long1 slender1 curved bones named clavicles1 and a pair of ribs4 ,this sternum develops a bird-like keel4 ,both ,mole and ,bat are regarded as differing from ,pterodactyles in the bone giving attachment to the clavicles instead of to the coracoids4 ,the proximal part of the sternum in both the living animals1 gives attachment to but one pair of sternal ribs4 ,the ,pterodactyle sternum otherwise differs from the ,bats in having the articulations for the coracoids close together1 of a peculiar concavo-convex character1 with a massive portion or keel prolonged forward in front of the coracoid articulations4 ,the ,bat cannot be said to resemble the ,pterodactyle closely4 ,the sternum of the ,mole differs from that of the ,pterodactyle in having a less developed shield1 and in having a more developed keel which is not prolonged in front of the coracoid articulations4 ,these examples demonstrate that resemblance in conformation is functional1 and no proof of affinity4 ,pterodactyles make some approach in the proportions of their sternum to ,struthious birds4 ,but the ,struthionid have the bone thick1 do not develop a keel1 nor1 have they an inter-coracoid process while the coracoid articulations are singularly long and narrow instead of being ovate4 ,with other birds the ,pterodactyle sternum agrees in giving attachment to the coracoid bones by synovial articulations1 in the bone being shield-shaped1 and supporting a more or less developed keel4 ,the keel is chiefly developed at the proximal end1 as in the ,albatross1 which has the bone broad2 and it is prolonged in front of the coracoids exactly as in ,mergus merganser1 which sternum if a little broader in the shield and thicker in the keel would very nearly reproduce the sternum of the ,pterodactyle1 even to the post-coracoid lateral emargination of ,cambridge specimens4 ,among reptiles the only form which suggests comparison is the ,chameleon1 in which however the sternum consists of an anterior and a posterior part as in the ,bats1 the back part narrow1 and the front part a long lozenge shape1 with a keel made by inclination of the sides of the bone to each other as in the ,dodo1 but the keel such as it is1 is at the back part of the bone1 and there is no prolongation in front of the coracoids as in ,pterodactyle4 ,the coracoids are broad1 and are applied to the two anterior sides of the lozenge4 ,the ,crocodile has a narrow flat sternum which is prolonged anteriorly between the coracoids4 ,the resemblance is greater with mammals than with reptiles4 ,from birds the ,pterodactyle sternum makes no essential difference1 and in the ,merganser finds a close ally4 ,,coracoid4 ,pl4 #b1 fig4 #a-f4 ,case4 ,comp4 ,tablet4 ,specimen4 ,j a #b #a-bc ,commonly the coracoid in the ,cambridge ,pterodactyles is anchylosed to the scapula3 occasionally the bones are separate1 though the separation has hitherto only been observed in the largest species4 ,in #ahea ,professor ,owen1 when figuring the anchylosed ends of the scapula and coracoid in ,pterodactylus giganteus 7,bowerbank71 observed that in no part of the skeleton does the ,pterodactyle more nearly resemble a bird than in the scapular arch2 a view again urged emphatically in #ahei when similar fragments were described from the ,cambridge ,greensand4 ,since then perfect examples of the coracoid have occurred1 which show the characters given in the following description4 ,the bone is long1 with sub-parallel sides1 sub-triangnlar in section1 with the proximal end expanded exteriorly and posteriorly1 resembling in form the coracoid of a bird4 ,the front surface looks forward and outward2 it is flattened1 is a little convex transversely1 and a little convex in length2 it is rugose with muscular attachments1 which terminate in a tubercle on the uppermost fourth of the front1 usually near to the inner side4 ,the middle third of the slightly concave inside margin of the front aspect1 is sharply angular2 the parts above and below it have the angularity rounded off4 ,the outside margin1 a little more concave than the inside margin1 is sharply angular in its distal third1 in which the front gradually widens to near the sternal articulation1 when it contracts--the whole sternal termination of the bone being directed a little inward towards the manubrium of the sternum4 ,the inside1 which faces the opposite coracoid1 is convex transversely in the lower half or two-thirds2 its distal termination is carried inward4 ,the expanded proximal end of the inside is flattened1 or channelled1 by the developement inwardly1 at the proximal end of the ridge formed with the front side1 of a long strong process homologous with that on the inner side of the coracoid in birds4 ,the channel so formed rounds on to the proximal surface of the bone1 and extends backward to the limit of the scapula2 over it the second pectoral muscle may be presumed to have worked,n4 ,the third side of the bone is much more concave in length than either of the others2 it looks backward1 outward1 and downward1 the proximal end being turned outward and downward more than the distal end2 it is a little concave transversely at the expanded proximal end4 ,near the distal end there are sometimes visible a few faint marks of the insertion of muscular fibres1 but they are much less distinct than those made by the coraco-brachialis muscle in the corresponding region of the coracoid in birds4 ,throughout its length it rounds into the inner side1 and the upper third rounds convexly into the front4 ,on the most posterior part of this aspect of the proximal end is a groove terminating in a long pneumatic foramen1 partly in the coracoid1 partly in the scapula4 ,footnote ,n3 ,the homologous process is more developed in ,pterodactylus giganteus4 ,see f4 #g4 pl4 ,,xxxi4 ,owen1 ,cret4 ,rept4 ,the muscular attachments on the front aspect of the coracoid appear to be two2 one large and long inserted into the inner half of the middle third of the bone1 terminating at the proximal end in a tubercle4 ,no specimen shows the distal end of the insertion4 ,this may indicate a subdivision of the first pectoral muscle4 ,the other insertion1 if it be distinct1 is long and much narrower and at the distal end of the bone4 ,this1 according to the analogy of birds1 should be the third pectoral muscle2 if the insertion should be but part of that to which it is distally adjacent1 then the third pectoral muscle must have had an enormous developement unparalleled in birds4 ,the distal end of the bone terminates in a synovial articulation concave transversely1 convex from front to back1 in form transversely ovate3 the narrow side of the articulation1 like the thin edge of the coracoid1 being exterior4 ,the articulation is about three fourths of the transverse diameter of the distal end2 it is at right angles with the long axis of the bone1 and looks downward and a little backward4 ,the proximal end1 massively enlarged outward and backward1 presents on the proximal surface three well defined regions4 ,the largest of these is an irregular flattened surface half ovate in form1 inclined to the axis of the bone at about #de1 looking backward1 and upward also1 when the bone is held vertically2 the mesial hindermost half of the radius of this area is occupied by a pneumatic cavity3 to this surface is applied the scapula4 ,the next largest surface is rectangular and oblong1 looking upward1 outward1 and a little forward4 ,the transverse aspect which looks outward being nearly half as long again as the antero-posterior aspect which looks forward2 in the latter direction the area is slightly concave1 in the former direction it is slightly convex2 its posterior boundary is parallel with the front of the bone3 this area forms the anterior moiety of the glenoid cavity1 to which the proximal end of the humerus is applied4 ,the remaining surface of the proximal end is sub-quadrate1 adjoins the two other surfaces as well as the front and the inside of the shaft1 it is conically concave4 ,the entire bone when applied to the sternum looked outward1 backward and upward4 ,professor ,owen remarked 7#ahei7 that the coracoid is shorter and straighter in birds than in ,pterodactyles1 but is commonly broader1 and with a longer and stronger anterior process4 ,the points in which the ,pterodactyle coracoid resembles that of birds 7e4 g4 ,gallinace7 are the long slender triangular shaft2 the concavo-convex articulation to the sternum2 the convexity of the distal end in front1 and its concavity behind2 the posterior aspect of its scapular surface1 and the pneumatic foramen4 ,the points in which it is distinct from birds are that the bone is not produced proximally beyond the glenoid cavity for the humerus1 which1 instead of being lateral as in birds1 and looking outward1 in ,pterodactyles forms the proximal-termination of the bone4 ,the sternal articulation is proportionally much shorter transversely in ,pterodactyles1 terminating in a convex margin which rounds up into the thin outer margin1 as in the immature coracoid of the common ,cock4 ,it is bow-shaped in front instead of being straight1 and is commonly longer than in birds4 ,the usual ossified connection with the scapula is not entirely unparalleled in birds1 the whole pectoral girdle being sometimes anchylosed into a bony mass as in the frigate bird4 ,in the monotremata1 the only mammals in which the coracoids are separate bones1 they rather recall those of ,ichthyosaurus than those of any other animals1 and have no connection with the sternum4 ,the bone which represents it functionally in placental mammals is the clavicle4 ,in no reptile is there any structure resembling the ,ornithosaurian coracoid4 ,the nearest approximation is made by the ,crocodile1 in which as in the ,chameleon the pectoral girdle is formed as in pterodactyles and struthious birds by scapula1 coracoid and sternum4 ,but in the ,crocodile the coracoid is compressed1 and expanded from side to side both proximally and distally4 ,distally it has no synovial articulation with the sternum2 and proximally a wide process of the bone extends beyond the articulation for the humerus as in birds1 only the scapula unites with the prolonged part1 and the glenoid cavity looks forward and inward4 ,the coracoid is essentially avian in its affinities1 though with peculiar characters of its own4 ,in the ,german genera it closely resembles specimens from the ,cambridge ,greensand4 #bc specimens are exhibited4 ,nos4 #d1 #aj1 #ab1 are the middle parts of shafts of left coracoids4 ,nos4 #c-ab1 #bb1 are the middle parts of shafts of right coracoids4 ,nos4 #b1 #e1 #ad1 are proximal ends of left coracoids4 ,nos4 #a1 #f1 #h1 #i1 #bc1 are proximal ends of right coracoids4 ,nos4 #ae1 #af1 #ag1 #ah1 #ai1 #bj1 #ba1 are distal ends of left coracoids4 ,no4 #ac is a nearly perfect left coracoid1 and ,no4 #g is the glenoid cavity for the humerus formed by a right coracoid with the anchylosed scapula4 ,,scapula4 ,pl4 #a1 figs4 #b-ab4 ,case4 ,comp4 ,tablet4 ,specimen4 ,j a #c #a-ag #d #a- #f #e #a- #d ,professor ,owen described the scapula of ,pterodactylus giganteus in #ahea1 and added further particulars regarding the ,species from the ,cambridge ,greensand1 in #ahei2 but1 as with the coracoid1 only the humeral end has hitherto been figured4 ,the only example sufficiently perfect to give the length and proportions of the bone is preserved in the collection of ,mr ,reed1 of ,york4 ,this left scapula is a stout strong bone1 short in proportion to its strength1 of flattened ovate form in section1 expanding at the humeral end into an irregular sub-rhomboid mass4 ,it is smaller in the middle1 contracting both from side to side and from back to front till the back to front measurement is #g_/af of an inch1 and the side to side measurement is #aa_/af of an inch1 and it expands a little at the free end1 which terminates in a smooth heart-shaped surface1 convex in the long diameter1 which measures #g_/h of an inch1 and flat in the short one1 which measures nearly #e_/h of an inch2 it is at right angles with the inside of the bone4 ,the sharp superior lateral outline is concave1 but less so than the inferior lateral outline2 into that inferior aspect of the bone the sides are more fully rounded4 ,the flattened inner surface applied to the ribs is concave in the length of the bone1 which measures #c-a_/b inches2 the posterior half of which is convex transversely1 the anterior humeral half is concave transversely so as to be cup-shaped1 and measures in extreme width #a-aa_/af inch2 the outline of the transversely convex outer side in length is nearly straight1 but the exterior part and glenoid cavity of the proximal end is broken away1 and there only remains a small median proximal surce broken at both ends1 a little concave in length1 measuring #e_/h of an inch1 and convex in breadth measuring #a_/d of an inch4 ,as there is no specimen in the ,woodwardian ,museum showing clearly the connection of the proximal with the distal end1 the specimens are arranged on separate tablets4 ,humeral ,end of ,scapula4 ,the humeral end of the scapula exhibits in the different species much diversity of form1 spreading laterally from the shaft1 and terminating in an elongated articular surface truncating the bone nearly at right angles4 ,on its inferior border it throws out a large convex tuberosity1 separated from the humeral articular surface by a deep emargination4 ,from the tuberosity usually arises a crescentic row of muscular insertions1 which is continued inward and forward over the most compressed part of the scapula towards the middle of the humeral articulation4 ,from the superior margin1 interior to the coracoid1 arises a prominent ridge1 the spine of the scapula1 which is directed diagonally backward and downward1 terminating in the middle of the outer surface1 where it is bordered on the anterior aspect by a long narrow muscular attachment4 ,between this spine and the elevated margin of the glenoid cavity the bone is much compressed and concave4 ,on the inside surface of the bone there appear to be small muscular attachments in front of and behind the great tuberosity4 ,the area between the spine and the inner surface is sometimes flattened1 sometimes gently convex4 ,with well-marked distinctive characters in the inferior tuberosity1 the pre-tuberous emargination and the thick rounded form of the bone1 the ,pterodactyle scapula is intermediate in character between that of a mole1 a bird1 and the crocodile2 wanting the sabre shape of the bird's scapula1 it also wants the wide expanded form of the scapula of the ,crocodile1 but resembles the latter in the direction and degree of developement of the spine4 ,this modification is probably due to the outward direction and clavicular function of the coracoid1 as well as to the raptorial habit of the organism4 ,in no living ,reptile is there a scapula to be compared with that of the ,pterodactyle1 for besides the free end being expanded1 in the crocodile1 it is also thin and squamous and the bone makes a continuous curve with the coracoid as in struthious birds1 and not a sharp angle as in ,pterodactyles4 ,the spine in crocodiles is on the anterior border of the bone and directed upward and backward1 while in ,pterodactyles it is on the posterior border and directed upward and forward4 ,in the ,chameleon the scapula is more elongated and narrow1 narrower in proportion to its length than in ,pterodactyle1 but becomes rapidly wide at its union with the coracoid4 ,it is curved in length so as to fit on to convex ribs4 ,a scapula presenting some resemblance to ,pterodactyle is found in certain ,liassic ,ichthyosaurs4 ,among mammals a straight elongated narrow scapula is rare4 ,the mole however has a scapula of this kind somewhat cylindrical in its proximal half and not much expanded at the free end1 on which there is a small spine4 ,the anterior emargination above the glenoid cavity in ,pterodactyle is entirely mammalian1 as is the anterior tuberosity above the emargination1 for it entirely corresponds with what in ruminants1 pachyderms and many mammals would be named the coracoid process4 ,if that process is accurately determined it is difficult to say what this is4 ,in birds there is often a prolonged process on the inner side of the coracoid1 which however extends interior to other parts of the scapula1 and to this the furculum is attached4 ,such traces of a spine as are to be detected in the swan conform to the ,pterodactyle4 ,no bird has the scapula cylindrical1 even struthious birds only making an approximation to such a condition2 and no birds have the scapula so straight4 ,the bone is more avian and mammalian than reptilian2 and more avian than mammalian but with strong distinctive characters of its own4 #ag specimens of the humeral ends of scapul are exhibited4 ,nos4 #a1 #d1 #f1 #g1 #h1 #i1 #aa1 #ac1 #ad1 #ae1 #ag are left scapul4 ,nos4 #b1 #c1 #e1 #aj1 #ab1 #af are right scapul4 ,the tablet of the distal ends of scapul comprises #f specimens4 ,fore-,limb4 ,,humerus4 ,pl4 #d4 ,case4 ,comp4 ,tablet4 ,specimen4 ,j a #f #a-df #g #a- #c #h #a ,there are among the fossils of the ,cambridge ,greensand at least two well-marked types of ,pterodactyle humerus1 readily recognised by the forms of the proximal and of the distal ends1 and by the positions of the pneumatic foramina4 ,in the group having the ulnar ridge developed the pneumatic foramen is on the posterior aspect of the bone,o under the ulnar ridge1 as in birds2 but in some of the small ,pterodactyles the foramen is on the anterior surface1 and on its radial side4 ,this latter kind of humerus has the distal end more or less divided into three convex surfaces1 while the radial crest is enormously developed and terminates in a smooth oblong flattened surface nearly as large as the proximal articular surface1 and looking anteriorly4 ,the distal articular surfaces are not as in birds parallel to that of the proximal end1 though they agree with those of birds in being at right angles to the radial crest2 this ridge in ,pterodactyles being directed much further outward and backward than in birds4 ,footnote ,o3 ,professor ,owen states 7p4 #af1 #c;d ,supt47 that the foramen is palmar4 ,fig4 #ae4 ,t4 ,,iii4 #b;d ,supt4 shows it to be anconal4 ,the largest forms of ,pterodactyle all have the distal articular surface flatter1 and the proximal articulation less bent back so as to look more upwards4 ,no specimen of this kind of humerus has occurred with the radial crest preserved2 but it is apparently carried farther down the shaft and not so far forward as in the other group4 ,this latter kind of bone is shown by ,prof4 ,owen in ,t4 ,,iii4 figs4 #a1 #b1 #crd ,sup4 ,cret4 ,reptiles2 the former kind has been illustrated in figure #e of the same plate4 ,some of the most gigantic ,pterodactyles appear to have had the limb-bones as solid as those of crocodiles1 and unpermeated by air2 and there is no evidence that the high ,avian characteristics of most of these ,greensand fossils also pertained to all the previously known types from the lower secondary rocks4 ,the osteological series comprises #df specimens4 ,no4 #cj is a nearly perfect right humerus4 ,nos4 #a1 #b1 #e1 #f1 #g1 #h1 #i1 #aa1 #ah1 #bb1 #bc1 #be1 #ci are examples of the proximal ends of left humeri4 ,nos4 #c1 #d1 #aj1 #ab1 #ac1 #ad1 #ae1 #af1 #ag1 #ai1 #bd1 #bf1 #bg1 #bh1 #ch1 #dj1 #da are examples of the proximal ends of right humeri4 ,nos4 #bj1 #ba1 #cb1 #cc1 #cd1 #ce1 #cg1 #db1 #dd1 #de1 are examples of the distal ends of left humeri4 ,nos4 #bi1 #ca1 #cf1 #dc and #df are distal ends of right humeri4 ,no4 #cj shows the entire length of the humerus to be #b-a_/b inches4 ,it has a nearly circular shaft with a diameter of a little more than a quarter of an inch1 being more slender than the corresponding bone of ,pt4 suevicus1 which has the same length4 ,the proximal articular surface is crescentic1 the anterior concavity corresponding with the concave anterior aspect of the proximal end1 while the convex border corresponds to the convex posterior side of the bone1 which it overhangs3 it is worn1 but appears to measure half an inch from the radial to the ulnar side4 ,the ulnar ridge 7which is worn7 has not extended more than a quarter of an inch beyond the articular surface4 ,the thin bird-like radial crest1 arising rather more distally than the ulnar ridge1 is flat on its posterior surface1 and extends anteriorly for a distance nearly half as far again as the length of the proximal articular surface of the humerus4 ,on the proximal third of the posterior face are two contiguous long narrow oblique muscular insertions4 ,the proximal ends ,nos4 #bb1 #bc1 #bd1 #be are examples of this kind of bone1 having the pneumatic foramen radially situated on the anterior aspect near to the articular surface1 as may be seen in ,no4 #bd4 ,no4 #be shows the termination of the radial crest in an oblique oblong smooth surface1 slightly convex in length and breadth1 directed distally towards the ulnar side4 ,no4 #f1 #g1 #ac1 #bg1 are examples of another kind of proximal end1 where the pneumatic foramen is an oval hole on the ulnar side of the posterior surce4 ,the radial crest arises more distally1 and the ulnar ridge more proximally1 than in the small species1 like ,no4 #cj4 ,nos4 #d1 #aa1 #ad1 #af are examples of other species with the foramen placed as in the last group1 only less near to the proximal end1 while it enters obliquely1 being directed distally from the broad concave area proximal to it4 ,the largest proximal ends known1 such as ,no4 #b1 which though very imperfect measures #b-c_/d inches over what remains of the articular surface1 appear to conform to this latter type4 ,distally the humerus ,no4 #cj enlarges1 widening rapidly on the radial side1 which is bordered near the distal end by a sharp ridge showing a muscular attachment1 while the ulnar side is rounded and rather inflated4 ,the articular surface looks downward and in the direction of the radial process4 ,there is a mesial concavity on the radial side which is bordered on the right and on the left by a prominent rounded condyle1 and behind by a condyloid convexity4 ,on that side which in conformity with the nomenclature applied to birds' bones1 has here been named the ulnar side1 the ulnar and mesial condyles are impressed with a flattened slightly concave sub-rhomboid area1 which looks downward1 backward1 and towards the ulnar side4 ,these characters are not well seen in ,no4 #cj1 but may be effectively studied in their specific variations in ,nos4 #cf1 #cg1 #db1 #dc1 #dd1 #de1 and #df4 ,nos4 #bj1 #ba1 #bi1 #ca1 #cb1 #cc1 #cd1 #ce1 are examples of the distal ends of humeri of a different type4 ,they are mostly larger than the preceding group1 and correspond in characters with the large proximal ends1 but appear to be separable into two groups1 namely those with a pneumatic foramen on the anterior radial side near to the articular surface1 and those where no pneumatic foramen is seen4 ,unlike the previously considered type1 the ulnar side is sometimes more inflated than the radial side4 ,the mesial condyle in this group appears in every case to be an epiphysis1 which is wanting4 ,the radial condyle becomes a large flattened slightly convex surface looking downwards1 which in some of the species1 as ,nos4 #ba and #cb 7in other respects remarkable species71 shows an approach to a trochlear character on its anterior side4 ,in ,nos4 #cc1 #cd and #ce the mesial anterior concavity becomes flattened and abuts at an angle against the flattened radial condyle4 ,no4 #bj shows the rhomboid impression on the ulnar side to be more concave and more ovate4 ,the ulnar condyle remains a smaller but prominent tubercle directed distally4 ,nos4 #ba1 #bb and #cd show a ridge developed on the ulnar side of the shaft like that on the radial side in the other group1 while the radial ridge is not so near to the articular surface4 ,the largest and smallest distal ends of humeri known1 both show the characters here enumerated4 ,the great distal end of a left humerus1 figured by ,prof4 ,owen1 ,pl4 ,,iv4 f4 #a1 #b1 #c of the #ast ,supplement to the ,cretaceous ,pterosauria1 is of this kind1 and though imperfect measures more than three inches over what remains of the articular surface4 ,in the small humerus1 ,no4 #cj1 the width over the distal articular surface is #e_/hths of an inch4 ,if it is assumed that the large bone was no more than #e times the length of the small one1 the entire length of the humerus would have been about twelve inches4 ,the smallest humerus1 ,no4 #bi1 measures over the shaft rather more than one eighth of an inch4 ,the ,ornithosaurian humerus has but little in common with that of any mammal4 ,most mammals have the proximal head of the bone hemispherical1 and a pit at the distal end for the olecranon process of the ulna1 while there is usually little indication of a radial crest1 and the proximal and distal ends are in the same plane4 ,in the ,bat however the bone is twisted a little so that the slight radial crest looks in the same direction as the distal end1 here also there is no pit for the olecranon2 but the bone is sigmoid and proportionally much longer than in ,pterodactyles4 ,in the horse1 hippopotamus1 c41 the radial process becomes more developed but never resembles that of a ,pterodactyle4 ,among reptiles1 the bone may be compared with lizards and crocodiles4 ,in crocodiles the proximal and distal ends are nearly in the same plane1 the distal end has two condyles1 the head is convex from side to side1 and the radial crest is moderately developed and never extends so far outward or so far proximally as in ,pterodactyle4 ,in the ,chameleon the bone is more twisted than in ,crocodile1 and as in ,pterodactyle the distal end is compressed on the radial side to a sharp margin4 ,in ,iguana1 ,scink1 and ,monitor both proximal and distal ends are much expanded1 and the radial process makes no approximation to that of a ,pterodactyle4 ,the bird humerus does not approximate more closely in form to that of the ,pterodactyle than does the ,chameleon humerus1 though it has the cardinal distinction of pneumatic foramina1 and these sometimes corresponding in position in the two groups4 ,the bird humerus is commonly longer1 though in the parrots the proportions and straightness are not unlike ,pterodactyle4 ,in some respects a nearer resemblance is seen in the raptorial bird ,gypogeranus serpentarius1 in which the radial process is rather more developed than in the ,crocodile1 and extends further proximally though still much smaller than in ,pterodactyle2 here too the superior surface is concave from side to side1 and the distal articulation is not unlike that of some ,pterodactyles4 ,but no ,pterodactyle has the head of the humerus convex from the radial to the ulnar sides1 and the bird is distinctive in having the ulnar crest developed on the inferior side of the head3 a faint approximation to a similar development is seen in ,crocodile1 but there is no trace of such a process in ,pterodactyle4 ,the distal end is more ,bird-like than ,lacertian in form1 but is twisted to a greater angle with the proximal end than in birds4 ,altogether the bone is distinctive4 ,the points in which it is unlike birds and reptiles are those in which ,birds and ,lizards resemble each other2 it would not be easy to say that in form it resembles one group more than the other4 ,but it is linked with birds by the pneumatic foramina4 ,,radius ,,and ,,ulna4 ,case4 ,comp4 ,tablet4 ,specimen4 ,j a #i #e- #f #aj #a-aj #aa #a- #g #ab #a- #d #ac #e- #f ,of neither of these bones has a perfect specimen been found4 ,while fragments of humeri are met with frequently1 fragments of these bones are rare4 ,in accordance with the analogy with birds the ,ulna might be presumed to be the larger bone of the two4 ,but from a study of ,german specimens the larger bone is found to be the ,radius1 which according to the mammalian plan is placed in front of the ulna4 ,as a whole1 the fore-arm of ,ornithosaurians is only to be compared with the insectivorous mammal ,chrysochloris ,capensis1 in which there are also three bones in the fore-arm1--the third bone like the ,pteroid bone in ,ornithosaurians1 extending about half-way from the carpus to the humerus1 and holding1 relatively1 a similar position and development to the fibula in bats4 ,the pteroid bone articulated with a separate carpal1 and was placed on the side of the arm1 adjacent to the radius1 which at the distal end extended in ,german specimens more inward than the ulna4 ,in ,chrysochloris the third bone appears to be behind the other bones1 and adjacent to the ulna,p4 ,footnote ,p3 ,see ,d',alton and ,pander ,chiropteren und ,insectivoren1 ,bonn1 #ahca1 pl4 #e1 ,chrysochloris4 ,among neither birds nor reptiles is any comparable modification of the fore-arm to be found4 ,then by examining the proximal surface of the proximal carpal1 the characters of the distal end of the ,radius are readily discovered4 ,the proximal carpal shows on the same surface another articular facets with which however only one fragmentary distal end of a bone corresponds4 ,that accordingly is identified as the ulna4 ,besides these1 three other articular ends of bones occur1 one of which fits on to the distal end of the femur4 ,the remaining two are both large bones1 with epiphyses which formed portions of the articular surfaces1 and are usually wanting4 ,one of these bones corresponds in form with the ulna of a bird1 and would fit the facet on the ulnar side of the distal end of the ,pterodactyle humerus4 ,the other bone is massive with a sub-quadrate articular end1 and might well be the proximal end of the radius4 ,some specimens are among the largest fragments of ,pterodactyle bone known4 ,the only other bone that either of these could be is the distal end of the tibia1 a bone not yet known1 but probably not unlike that of a bird4 ,i4 ,distal ,end of ,ulna4 ,four specimens which show articular ends such as the ulna should have1 are mounted together4 ,they are compressed bones with the section of the fracture elongately oval2 and the shaft widens from the fracture to the articulation without increasing in thickness4 ,the outer surface is gently convex1 becoming concave mesially near the articulation2 the inner surface has the same characters1 only the concavity at the extreme distal end reaches from side to side of the bone4 ,the two short sides both look outward as well as laterally2 one of them flattened so as to thicken the bone1 is concave in vertical outline owing to the extreme distal end turning suddenly outward2 the other side a little convex1 compresses the bone and inflects its inner margin4 ,the longest specimen measures #a-e_/h inch2 #e_/h inch wide at the fracture1 and #a-a_/h inch wide at the distal end4 ,the greatest thickness at the distal end is half an inch1 the thickness of the fractured shaft is #e_/h of an inch4 ,the articular surface appears to have an elongated sub-reniform shape1 the part at the compressed side of the bone being narrower than the broad ovate part on the thick side of the bone1 to the lateral limit of which it extends1 while the narrow part does not extend laterally nearly so far as the inflected border1 which appears to give attachment to powerful muscles4 ,there is also a strong muscular attachment at the corresponding diagonal corner of the bone where the outer surface on its right meets the side of the bone in an elevated ridge4 ,in its long diameter the articulation is a little convex2 transversely it is very convex in the ovate part1 but more flattened in its narrower continuation4 ,where widest it measures about #d_/ajths of an inch4 ,nos4 #e and #f on another tablet appear to be distal ends of ulna of another kind of ,pterodactyle4 ,they are less compressed1 more quadrate in section1 and have the sides more nearly parallel ,the flattened side similarly has a concave border1 but instead of having its distal termination developed laterally1 has it thickened behind4 ,the opposite side of the bone which in the other specimens was compressed is here thick and well rounded1 and not at all inflected4 ,there is an absence of the concavity noticed on the outer surface of the bone in the compressed specimens4 ,the articular surface is much flatter1 and a little concave in length instead of being convex2 as in the other examples it looks downward4 ,the largest fragment4 ,no4 #e1 measures #a-c_/h inch long2 it is #f_/h inch wide at the fracture1 and #d_/h inch thick4 ,the sub-quadrate distal end is more than an inch long1 more than #d_/hths inch thick on the thick side1 and nearly #d_/hths inch thick on the compressed side4 ,,ii4 ,distal ,end of ,radius4 ,the best preserved of the #aj specimens here exhibited is #c inches long1 ,no4 #b4 ,the shaft is oval1 flattened on one side2 measuring at an inch from the fractured end #g_/ajths of an inch in the least diameter1 and one inch in the wide diameter4 ,it widens distally at first slowly1 then rapidly1 till at the articular end its greatest width is two inches4 ,but while expanding laterally it contracts from side to side1 the more convex side of the two at about an inch from the articular end1 beginning to approximate to the flatter side till the articular end has a short diameter of less than half an inch4 ,on the left-hand corner of the convex inner side of the bone is an elevated flattened disc for muscular attachments1 fully half an inch in diameter1 there is a slight muscular attachment interior to this1 nearer the middle of the bone4 ,the left-hand corner of the flattened outer side of the distal end of the radius is marked by a vertical ridge bordering a similarly elevated oval muscular attachment4 ,parallel to this nearer the middle of the side is a much stronger and acutely elevated ridge4 ,the articulation is made up of three distinct parts1 all in a straight line4 ,the portion of bone adjacent to the large muscular disc is compressed and rounded on the distal end2 then first there is a rather deep circular cup #c_/hths of an inch wide1 nearer to the more convex than to the flatter side of the bone2 adjacent to this cup is a convex ball of about the same size2 while the remainder of the articulation is concave in length1 convex from side to side1 and looks downward and a little towards the inner convex side of the bone4 ,the specimens are arranged so as to display these characters4--,the example described is of nearly the same size as that figured for the humerus in fig4 #a1 ,t4 ,,xxiv4 of the ,cretaceous ,reptilia4 ,the less well preserved bone in that figure exhibits the ,ulna in its true position behind the ,radius4 ,,iii4 ,proximal ,end of ,ulna4 ,this bone has much the proportions of the ,ulna in birds1 the smaller specimens nearly resembling the ulna of the ,heron4 ,the specimen 7,no4 #a7 with the shaft best preserved is #b-a_/d inches long1 cylindrical at the fracture1 where it measures in diameter #c_/afths of an inch4 ,it gradually enlarges proximally widening to about #g_/ajths of an inch2 near the proximal end it is a little curved1 the side which is concave in length being a little flattened1 while there is a lateral elevation on the opposite side1 apparently corresponding to the quill-ridge on the convex side of the bird-ulna4 ,there is a separate ossification for the olecranon1 which is an irregular sub-oblong bone forming the outer part of the articulation2 it is only preserved in ,no4 #a4 ,nos4 #d1 #e and #f show the concave transverse groove from which it has come away4 ,the articular surface looks upward and forward1 in which aspect it has a trapezoidal form4 ,sometimes1 as in ,no4 #b1 the great sigmoid area is divided into two parts by a vertical ridge1 the more elevated part of the articulation on the radial side of the bone being concave1 while the outer part1 as in the heron1 besides being concave1 has its border on the concave side of the bone produced and rounded4 ,there is a small triangular elevation on the radial aspect of the proximal end like that on the corresponding part of the ulna of the heron4 ,on this aspect the bone is flattened1 on the opposite and outward aspect it is compressed and produced as in the bird4 ,no4 #b measures #a-a_/h inch over the articular end4 ,the series includes #f specimens4 ,,iv4 ,proximal ,end of ,radius4 ,this bone terminated in an epiphysis which formed part of the articular surface1 and has disappeared from all the #g specimens mounted4 ,so much of the articulation as remains does not oppose the idea of its having been attached to the humerus1 while the large size of the example ,no4 #g1 which could not have measured less than #b-a_/b inches from side to side over the articulation1 is more in accordance with what is at present known of the dimensions attained by the distal end of the humerus than with the size that would be expected in the distal end of the tibia1 which is the only other unknown bone to which these specimens could be referred4 ,the longest specimen1 ,no4 #c1 is #c inches long2 broadly ovate at the fracture1 measuring in the long diameter #a inch1 and in the short diameter more than #c_/dths of an inch4 ,nearer the articular end the bone becomes in section sub-quadrate or rather sub-rhomboid4 ,no4 #a shows these terminal characters extremely well4 ,on the posterior aspect of the specimen the surface is divided into two flattened slightly convex parts by a median vertical well-rounded angular bend4 ,in front the side is similarly divided into two parts1 both of them a little concave proximally1 by a sharp median vertical ridge1 which does not reach to the articulation by a varying distance1 never so long as the bone is wide4 ,the ridge terminates in1 and is pierced by1 a vertical groove apparently for a nutritive vessel4 ,where the anterior and posterior aspects of the bone converge laterally the sides are well rounded4 ,only a small part of the articular surface is preserved1 looking upward and a little forward2 it terminates the wider of the halves of the bone laterally and in front4 ,the remainder of the articular surface1 from which the epiphysis has come away1 may be divided principally in the majority of specimens into a posterior flattened median rhomboid space and an oblong cup-shaped anterior space divided from it by an elevated ridge4 ,the extreme lateral termination appears to have been a ball-shaped convexity4 ,the great length of the fore-arm relatively to the humerus1 characteristic of ,german ,ornithosaurians1 from the fragmentary condition of ,cambridge specimens is not seen4 ,although the fore-arm resembles ,chrysochloris in plan the resemblance is not close in the details of form4 ,in many ,mammals it is characteristic for the radius to be the principal bone of the fore-arm1 and among ,ruminants in which this is especially the case the radius is altogether in front and the ulna behind as is the position with ,birds and ,crocodiles4 ,and among mammals with claws1 as in the ,lion1 ,bear1 c41 and in the ,chameleon1 it is characteristic1 for the radius also to be on the inside of the limb at the distal end1 as in ,ornithosaurians4 ,in form1 ridges1 and muscular attachments 7see pl4 #c7 the distal end of the radius approximates closely to the ,bear and the ,lion1 and may also be compared with the ,bats and ,birds1 though with ,birds it is a small bone4 ,from the epiphysis of the proximal end apparently being wanting it would be difficult to compare closely4 ,but though not like any particular mammal1 it might have pertained to a mammal since it has the large perforation for the nutritive vessel near to the proximal end as in the ,camel and many of the mammalia4 ,the ulna of the ,pterodactyles is at the proximal end altogether distinguished from mammals by the slight development of the olecranon1 nor can the distal end1 especially in its relation to the carpus1 be paralleled4 ,among birds and reptiles the ulna is the large bone1 and here a general resemblance in form to the ulna of ,pterodactyles is seen at the proximal end4 ,it is not compressed from side to side as in the ,crocodile1 ,iguana1 ,monitor1 c41 but from back to fronts in this rather resembling ,birds than the ,chameleon4 ,it however at the distal end is more crocodilian4 ,the fore-arm in plan is mammalian4 ,the ,pteroid bone is mammalian1 the ,radius is mammalian and avian2 the ,ulna is avian1 and crocodilian in form1 but mammalian in proportion4 ,the pneumatic foramen of the ulna is peculiarly avian4 ,,carpus4 ,pl4 #e4 ,case4 ,comp4 ,tablet4 ,specimen4 ,j b #a #a-ac #b #a-ah #c #a- #d #d #a- #h ,the pterodactyle wrist is made up of three bones1 arranged as a proximal carpal1 a distal carpal1 and a lateral carpal4 ,two of them are figured by ,professor ,owen1 who regarded the distal carpal of this description as the scapho-cuneiform2 while ,a very imperfect example of the proximal carpal is named the unciform3 neither of these determinations1 the reverse of those which follow1 were given as more than probable guesses4 ,i4 ,proximal ,carpal4 ,no4 #aj shows the proximal surface well2 portions of it are seen in ,nos4 #d1 #e1 #f1 #h1 #i1 #aa1 and #ab4 ,the distal surface is best exhibited in ,no4 #a2 portions of it are shown in ,nos4 #b1 #c1 #e1 #g1 #h4 ,no4 #ac is an impression taken from the proximal surce of a distal carpal to show its correspondence with distal surface of the proximal carpal4 ,the bone is proximally of an irregular oblong form1 being five sided1 and much broader towards the inner end than towards the outer end4 ,the two ends are sub-parallel1 and rather obliquely connected on one side by a nearly straight border more than twice as long as the shorter end4 ,the other limits of the sub-parallel ends are connected by two concave borders meeting in a well rounded convexity1 which is near to the broader inner end4 ,the proximal surface of the bone is flattened1 and may be divided into a sub-rhomboid space1 adjacent to the shorter of the sub-parallel ends1 which is moderately concave in the long axis of the bone and slightly convex transversely1 and an oblong space adjacent to the longer of the two ends4 ,this is separated from the sub-rhomboid space1 toward the straight side of the bone1 by an elevated ridge sub-parallel with the ends4 ,it is directed towards the convexity on the opposite side1 in which the long and short concave parts meet1 but after half crossing the bone it becomes forked in a ,u shape1 and less elevated2 the smooth unarticular included space shows an oval pneumatic foramen1 which varies in size with the different species4 ,the region between this ,y-shaped ridge and the longer of the two ends1 is sub-reniform1 slightly concave in its long diameter1 and deeply concave in the short diameter1 exactly corresponding in form with the articular surface already described as the distal end of the ulna4 ,also parallel with the long end of the bone are marks of an articular surface exactly corresponding with those described as the distal end of the radius2 that is1 at the convex angle of the angulated side is placed a hemispherical boss1' interior to which is a hemispherical concavity1 and extending toward the straight side is the oblique smooth border of the sub-rhomboid area described4 ,there still remains a space to be accounted for4 ,this consists of a sub-quadrate area forming the corner of the bone made by the concave side and the shorter outer end2 it is made up of an inner concave part separated from the radial articulation by a ridge1 and an outer convex part constituting the shorter end of the bone4 ,this carpal is moderately compressed from the proximal to the distal side1 except towards the shorter end of the bone1 being there prolonged distally into a wedge-shaped process1 showing at its termination marks of a powerful muscular attachment4 ,the outer lateral surface is of variable antero-posterior extent4 ,the distal articular surface is placed entirely toward the narrow end of the bone1 leaving at the proximal end a large smooth rhomboid unarticular area1 of which every side is a little concave3 it connects obliquely the proximal with the distal articular surfaces4 ,the distal articular area is divided by a diagonal ridge into a long oblong area of which the inner and outer sides are sub-parallel and the ends rounded3 it is slightly concave in length as well as transversely1 and is slightly twisted like the flukes of a screw4 ,adjacent to this region laterally is the other and sub-triangular part of the articulation4 ,the broad end of the triangle is toward the broad end of the bone2 it is concave in length and flattened transversely4 ,the two parts of the articulation are inclined to each other at a large angle1 both looking downward and outward1 but on opposite sides of the bone4 ,,ii4 ,distal ,carpal4 ,the tablets of this bone comprise #bb specimens4 ,nos4 #b1 #c1 #d1 #e1 #f1 #h1 #i1 #aj1 #ae1 #af1 #ai and #bb are so mounted as to exhibit the proximal surface4 ,nos4 #g1 #aa1 #ab1 #ac1 #ad1 #ae1 #af1 #bj and #ba show the distal surface of the bone4 ,no4 #ag is a cast from the distal surce of a proximal carpal for comparison with the proximal surface of the distal carpal4 ,no4 #af is a cast from the proximal end of the wing-metacarpal for comparison with the distal surface of the distal carpal4 ,no4 #bj is a distal carpal of unusual type1 #ai is a cast from its proximal surface1 and #ba is a cast from the distal surface of the same specimen4 ,the proximal aspect of this bone is rather narrower than the distal aspect2 each is sub-triangular in outline1 the sides being convexly curved4 ,in the long axis from the apex on the inside to the short outer,q side the bone is convex proximally with an oblique transverse depression2 in the short axis1 that is1 between the two longer sides1 the middle of the bone is hollow1 but the oblique transverse depression makes both sides of the hollow convex1--so that excepting the smooth unarticular triangular area adjacent to the apex1 the sub-quadrate articular surface is shaped somewhat like two cones put side by side in such manner that the apex of each touches the base of the other3 the apex of that cone which should touch the short side or base of the triangle formed by the bone1 is truncated by a depression which exhibits an oval pneumatic foramen4 ,towards the apex1 on the same side as the pneumatic foramen1 the margin of the bone is rounded for a small terminal oval articulation which looks outward and upward4 ,footnote ,q3 ,outer and inner are here used in accordance with the usual interpretation1 and the better to compare with birds4 ,the lateral aspects of the bone are at right angles to the proximal and distal surfaces4 ,they are smooth1 a little concave in antero-posterior extent1 and convex in the opposite direction4 ,that one on to which the marginal articular surface impinges is except for that surface sub-quadrate in outline2 the opposite side has a slightly crescentic form1 the flattened outline being distal4 ,they show several small foramina4 ,the distal aspect of the bone is comparatively flat4 ,the distal surface consists of a smooth unarticular part adjacent to the apex1 rather smaller than the corresponding area on the proximal aspect of the bone4 ,between this part and the sub-crescentic articular surface1 which occupies the remainder of the distal area1 is a large circular pit1 furthest removed from the side of the bone which forms the sub-apical marginal articulation4 ,the pit on the apical side shows several small foramina2 on the outer side of the bone the roughened articular surface extends down the pit side4 ,the articulation is flattened from side to side of the bone4 ,its outer margin is slightly prominent1 and the margin of the pit is slightly convex and prominent1 so that the intervening articular surface in the direction between these limits is concave4 ,it is commonly divided into two parts by a median band limiting a depressed half1 which is in a slightly different plane from the other half of the articulation4 ,where the depressed part terminates towards the marginal articulation1 which does not extend so far distally1 there is between the two a small step-like roughened articular portion4 ,the large crescentic articulation described gave attachment to the wing-metacarpal bone2 if there was a second metacarpal terminating in a claw1 it must have been attached to the small articulation last referred to4 ,in ,no4 #bj the pit is extremely small1 the impressed part of the articulation is small and deeply sunk1 while the apicular articulation is widened and shortened so as to make the outline of the bone quadrate4 ,,iii4 ,lateral ,carpal4 ,the tablet exhibits eight examples of a bone which at its distal end is attached to the marginal apicular articulation of the distal carpal1 thence extending proximally1 and terminating in an articular facet for the third bone of the fore-arm1 so as to overlap laterally both of the other carpals4 ,the bone is compressed1 is three times as wide as thick1 and in outline sub-quadrate with a distal talon4 ,on the inner side it is flat1 and on the outer side above the talon it is concave vertically and convex transversely in such way that the side of the bone to which the distal articulation is adjacent is thicker than the other side1 and sometimes bent at a sharp angle4 ,the talon on the inner aspect of the bone is flat and continuous with the quadrate side1 but on the outer aspect it is separated from the side by an elevated transverse thickening1 distally to which the bone is compressed1 and rounded into the adjacent parts4 ,the talon extends over more than half of the distal end of the bone1 and constitutes with the remainder of the distal end1 the distal articulation1 which is flat from front to back1 and concave from side to base4 ,the proximal articulation is cupped and extends over the whole proximal surface2 it is at right angles with the sides of the bone4 ,both the inner and outer sides exhibit small pneumatic foramina4 ,no4 #h differs from the other specimens in its sub-triangular lateral outline1 and general less complex modifications4 ,the ,carpus of the ,cambridge ,ornithosaurians at first sight is not easily compared with that of ,birds2 ,birds having but one bone between the radius and the metacarpus4 ,but that one bone in the ,ostrich1 for instance1 is not unlike in form to the proximal carpal of ,pterodactyle2 while the proximal end of the metacarpus presents so close an analogy with the distal carpal of the ,pterodactyle1 that even were it not easily demonstrated that the bone in ,birds commonly called the metacarpus is a carpo-metacarpus,r1 it would be strong evidence for such a determination4 ,in ,birds there is a small lateral bone between the ulna and carpo-metacarpus which is evidently homologous with the lateral carpal of our ,pterodactyles1 and so1 since this lateral carpal of the ,ostrich is the pisiform bone1 it results that the lateral carpal of ,pterodactyle is the pisiform bone also4 ,from this follows a conclusion of the first importance in the interpretation of the hand4 ,the fine hair-like metacarpals of the ,pterodactyle are on the side towards the pisiform bone1 while the great wing-metacarpal is on the side towards the index finger4 ,footnote ,r3 ,they separate without difficulty in the ,chicken4 ,in ,birds the rudimentary thumb 7or second finger1 according to ,owen7 has no connection with the carpus4 ,in the ,penguin1 ,aptenodytes ,patagonica1 it has disappeared altogether1 and there then remain two fingers of which the outer one 7seen from the front as we have placed our animal7 is the larger1 and has the greatest number of phalanges1 precisely as in ,ornithosaurians4 ,moreover the wing-metacarpal1 in the ,penguin especially1 is seen to unite with the carpus directly under the radius1 as is the case with the ,cambridge ,ornithosaurians4 ,hence it follows that in ,pterodactyles the thumb is not developed1 and that the wing-finger is not the little finger1 but the index finger1 precisely as in ,birds4 ,if ,goldfuss gave a reverse arrangement it was because the hand in his specimen1 as is proved by the claws1 was upside down4 ,in the immature state the distal carpal of ,pterodactyle appears to have been composite4 ,notwithstanding the opinions of eminent ,german philosophers to the contrary no reptile has a carpus comparable to that of the ,pterodactyle4 ,if some of them have two rows of bones and a pisiform bone1 so have mammals1 and the mammalian arrangement is not more like the ,ornithosauria than is that in ,reptiles4 ,,metacarpal ,,bone4 ,pl4 #f4 ,case4 ,comp4 ,tablet4 ,specimen4 ,j b #e #a-c ,the illustrations of this bone comprise #ca specimens4 ,nos4 #a to #ae are examples of the proximal end1 and ,nos4 #af to #ca show the distal trochlear end of the bone4 ,no4 #a1 which is nearly entire1 gives the form and proportions of the wing-metacarpal in one species1 but a knowledge of its variableness in ,german forms would guard against an assumption that all the other ,greensand species were to be restored on the plan of this example4 ,it is #c-e_/h inches long1 to which three-eighths of an inch may be added for the distal articulation1 making the length up to #d inches4 ,the proximal end is not well preserved1 but in its wide measurement is #e_/hths of an inch2 the distal end in the same measurement is about #c_/hths of an inch4 ,a large example from the ,chalk1 in the ,museum of ,c4 ,moore ,esq4 of ,bath1 shows the bone more attenuated distally4 ,no4 #a is compressed so as to be oblong in section at the proximal end1 and ovate in the middle of the shaft1 which is slightly smaller than the distal end4 ,one of the lateral outlines is straight2 the other is concave4 ,the bone is straight4 ,in ,no4 #cj the shaft where thickest measures less than #a_/d of an inch1 becoming nearly circular in section4 ,the shaft of ,no4 #ca measures nearly an inch in width at its distal end1 rather more than half an inch in thickness4 ,no4 #aj is #a-a_/b inch wide at the proximal end and #g_/hths of an inch thick4 ,no4 #i would not have measured less when perfect than #b-a_/b inches over the proximal end1 so that if it had the proportions of ,no4 #a it would have measured when entire not less than #af inches in length4 ,the ,proximal ,end4 ,the proximal end has never been figured4 ,prof4 ,owen's figure pl4 ,,iv4 fig1 #d-e1 ,first ,supt4 ,cret4 ,rep4 is probably part of a jaw1 and not the wing-metacarpal4 ,the articular surface is oblong with one corner rounded off so that the adjacent long and short sides become confluent on the exterior surface of the bone4 ,in the middle of the flat inside margin and extending proximally is a semi-cylindrical process1 which is prolonged a short distance down the side of the bone as an elevated ridge4 ,on the flattened articular end this process is bordered by a semicircular furrow which extends half-way across the bone1 outside of which is a slightly convex semicircular band which extends to the outer margin of the bone1 except towards the short side opposite to that one which rounds into the outer side1 where there appears to be a narrow unarticular area4 ,on the inside of the bone where the two ends of the semicircular proximal furrow terminate are two deep grooves which extend a short distance distally2 they are both limited by inward extensions of the short sides of the bone1 that crest being most developed in height and length which is toward the flattened short side4 ,the outline which these modifications give to the inner side of the proximal surface is intermediate in form between the letters ,s and sideways ,m4 ,the ,distal ,end4 ,the distal end has been figured by ,prof4 ,owen in the ,british ,fossil ,mammals1 p4 #ede2 in ,dixon's ,geology of ,sussex1 ,pl4 ,,xxix4 fig4 #ab2 ,cret4 ,reptiles1 ,pl4 ,,xxxii4 figs4 #d and #e1 ,first ,supt4 ,pl4 ,,iv1 fig4 #i-aa1 and other places1 and fully described4 ,it closely resembles the distal end of a bird's tibia2 and consists of a pulley-shaped end set obliquely on to the compressed shaft1 which just above the junction is reniform in section1 owing to the development of a median rounded ridge on the same inner side of the bone which bears the median ridge at the proximal end1 while on the opposite side there is a corresponding median depression which does not extend far proximally4 ,in this depression is an oval pneumatic foramen2 on the right of the median ridge of the other side1 but placed more distally1 is another pneumatic foramen4 ,the median ridge has sometimes a slight furrow on each side4 ,it terminates proximally in strong muscular insertions1 which extend round the right side of the bone2 and distally1 becoming more elevated and rounded1 it curves obliquely to the rights and forming one of the sides of the pulley1 passes round the base as three quarters of a spiral1 the termination extending laterally beyond the shaft4 ,on this side of the bone1 distal to the median depression1 arises another ridge strong and well rounded1 which is directed to the right1 similarly passes round the base as a spiral1 and forms the other side of the pulley4 ,it is not so prominent as the border previously described4 ,while the spirals approximate at their origin1 they become widely separated at the base1 making the articulation wider than the shaft4 ,in ,no4 #ca the three inches of the shaft which remain show both pairs of its sides sub-parallel2 the widest measures nearly an inch2 the base of the articulation is less than a quarter of an inch wider4 ,limited to the base1 between the two outer ridges of the pulley1 is a short median ridge slightly developed2 so as to flatten the middle of the concavity between the ridges1 and divide it into two grooves4 ,the degree to which the middle ridge is developed varies in different species4 ,in ,no4 #cj1 the smallest pterodactyle1 remarkable for a long wing-metacarpal bone1 it is not to be detected4 ,the exterior sides of the trochlear articulation are broad1 flattened1 and a little concave4 ,there is some variation in the way in which the shaft is set on the trochlear end4 ,it being often in the middle1 but not unfrequently inclined more to one side than to the other4 ,the metacarpus finds no close parallel among living animals4 ,the thread-like metacarpal bones suggest the condition of the hind-foot in the ,kangaroo4 ,the predominant metacarpal suggests the ruminants4 ,but the nearest approximation is found among birds where the bone for the middle finger is large and the bone for the third finger is slender4 ,this may be observed 7among other examples7 in the ,penguin and the ,swan4 ,but here the parallel ends4 ,the proximal end in ,birds1 we have already seen to be hidden by the anchylosed distal row of the carpus1 and the distal end though often convex from side to side never presents the trochlear joint of the ,pterodactyle4 ,consequently so far as regards the form of the articular ends the resemblance is closer with ,reptiles and clawed ,mammals than with ,birds4 ,in ,birds the small metacarpal is usually of similar length with the large one as is the case with ,pterodactyles4 ,,first ,,phalange4 ,pl4 #g4 ,case4 ,comp4 ,tablet4 ,specimen4 ,j b #f #a-aj ,no perfect specimen of the first phalange has been found in the ,cambridge ,greensand4 ,ten bones are mounted to illustrate it1 all of them less perfect than others in the series of associated bones4 ,no4 #a shows the heel of the proximal end2 ,nos4 #i and #aj are portions of the proximal articulation from which the epiphysis which forms the articular heel-part seen in ,no4 #a has come away4 ,nos4 #b to #h are the distal articular ends of first phalanges4 ,it is improbable that any of them belong to the second phalange1 since they agree in form1 and show muscular attachments which correspond4 ,prof4 ,owen has figured the shaft of a fine example of this bone in ,dixon's ,geology of ,sussex1 ,pl4 ,,xxxix4 fig4 #aa4 ,a good proximal end is shown in ,pl4 ,,xxxii4 fig4 #b1 of ,prof4 ,owen's monograph of the ,cretaceous ,reptilia1 but the figure appears to have been previously given in ,pl4 ,,xxiv4 fig4 #b of the same monograph4 ,by far the grandest specimens are drawn in ,pl4 ,,xxx4 ,prof4 ,owen names these wing bones4 ,in the ,literature of ,english ,pterodactyles the loss of the proximal epiphysis from the specimen represented in ,prof ,owen's fig4 #a and #b led me to interpret the bone as an ulna4 ,figs4 #a to #d represent the proximal ends and greater portions of the shafts of first phalanges4 ,the lower bone in fig4 #e is neither radius nor ulna1 as stated in the text of the ,cretaceous ,reptilia1 but the shaft and distal end of a first phalange2 the upper bone being the second phalange4 ,the ,proximal ,end4 ,the straight shaft throughout its length is triangular in section4 ,one side of the bone is gently convex2 this may be named for convenience the outside4 ,the two parts which make up the other side are inclined1 and have the angle in which they meet rounded2 one part looks upward and inward1 the other downward and inward4 ,towards the proximal end the bone widens and thickens1 and the moiety of the inner side which is away from the heel becomes cleft1 and has the sides of the depression rounded to form a large pneumatic foramen4 ,the articular surface looks upward and a little outward on the side of the pneumatic foramen4 ,it consists of two semicircular concave grooves1 separated by an intervening low convexity4 ,the outer of these grooves extends from the margin of the extreme proximal point of the heel to the widest point of the bone2 the other groove more deeply concave1 is a third shorter1 extending from inside the pneumatic foramen to the heel4 ,here both grooves converge1 terminating in a point1 exterior to which a little distally is a hemispherical mammilate eminence4 ,on the distal side of the eminence there is a depression so as to make the angle behind the heel almost hemispherically rounded4 ,this articulation fits on to the distal articulation of the wing-metacarpal4 ,when the proximal epiphysis forming the heel comes away1 it leaves a large sub-circular pit with a depressed narrow border4 ,distal ,end4 ,on nearing the distal end1 the angle of the inner side of the shaft becomes more depressed2 and the articulation becomes an elongated oval1 slightly convex transversely and convex in length so as to extend distally in a curve in such way that the articulation looks downward and outward from an aspect of the bone exactly opposite to the aspect from which the proximal articulation looks upward and inward4 ,hence the two articular surfaces are sub-parallel2 but the distal one at its distal termination is bent inward1 so as to make the adjacent lateral outline of the bone concave on the inside at its termination4 ,the articulation does not cover the most proximal part of the distal surface4 ,,second ,,phalange4 ,pl4 #g4 ,case4 ,comp4 ,tablet4 ,specimen4 ,j b #g #a-ad ,on this tablet are mounted #ad specimens4 ,nos4 #a to #i are examples of the proximal end of the second phalange4 ,if there were more than two phalanges1 of which there is no osteological evidence1 it is possible that proximal ends of succeeding phalanges may be included with these4 ,they all however resemble each1 other so closely as to lend no support to such a supposition4 ,nos4 8#aj to 8#ad have been mounted with the proximal ends because they appear to be portions of the middle of the shaft of the second phalange2 they indicate a rapid distal attenuation1 favouring the idea of there being but two phalanges4 ,the proximal end of the shaft has the outer side flattened1 rarely concave1 commonly slightly convex2 the inner side being much more inflated1 and not dissimilar in form to the inner side of the first phalange4 ,proximally the bone widens and one lateral outline extends outward in a curve1 on the inner side of which1 under the proximal articulation1 is placed the pneumatic foramen4 ,the elongated oval articular surface is concave from side to side and concave in length2 it does not extend in length so far as the straight side outline1 exterior to it being a crescentic flattened or convex area4 ,the distal end attenuates more rapidly in some specimens than others1 and appears in ,nos4 #aa1 #ab1 and #ad eventually to become cylindrical2 but none of the specimens show its distal termination4 ,the phalanges of the wing-finger attain a grand development in length which is not paralleled in ,birds1 nor surpassed in ,bats4 ,in the ,ostrich there are three phalanges in the wing-finger1 while in ,ornithopterus there are two joints1 and in other ,german ,pterodactyles four joints4 ,the terminal joint in the ,ostrich is a claw1 but in ,pterodactyle the terminal joint appears to be unarmed as in ordinary birds4 ,the form of the bones in being compressed from side to side is more bird-like than bat-like4 ,but the claws in their compression from side to side are more like the bat than the bird4 ,,distal ,,end ,,of ,,metacarpal or ,metatarsal ,bones4 ,pl4 #f4 ,case4 ,comp4 ,tablet4 ,specimen4 ,j b #g #a-ad ,sub-cylindrical bones1 apparently elongated1 and a little compressed obliquely1 terminating distally in a slightly expanded trochlear articulation4 ,some of them show on one side marks of an osseous adhesion3 this has led to their being regarded as claw metacarpals rather than as the distal ends of tibi4 ,but on the supposition of their being claw metacarpals1 they are as compared with the same bones in ,pt4 ,suevicus1 out of all proportion large1 since wing-metacarpals from the ,cambridge ,greensand would not as a rule have a diameter more than twice that of these bones4 ,the trochlear articulation is smaller in proportion to the shaft than in the wing-metacarpal1 and usually shows a pit at the side and grooves above for ligaments2 the mesial pulley groove is shallow and broad4 ,seven specimens are mounted in illustration1 of which ,no4 #c may be regarded as doubtful4 ,it is possible that they may be metatarsals4 ,,claw ,,phalange4 ,pl4 #h4 ,case4 ,comp4 ,tablet4 ,specimen4 ,j b #h #a-c ,these three sub-triangular bones1 which supported the claws1 are much compressed from side to side1 and consequently deep4 ,the superior outline is convex from front to back and rounded from side to side4 ,the inferior outline is concave from front to back1 sometimes narrower1 sometimes broader than the upper part of the bone1 while the inferior aspect is always more flattened than the superior aspect4 ,on each side on the lower half of the bone is a deep groove4 ,the articular end is divided into an upper articular part1 which extends as far down as the lateral groove and a lower non-articular part with ligament markings4 ,the articulation is concave from above downward1 and is divided into two lateral parts by a mesial vertical ridge4 ,the articular end is about half as deep as the bone is long4 ,pelvic ,girdle and ,hind ,limb4 ,,os ,,innominatum4 ,pl4 #h4 ,case4 ,comp4 ,tablet4 ,specimen4 ,j b #aj #a-i ,nine specimens are mounted in illustration of the pelvic girdle3 ,nos4 #a1 #c1 #d1 #e and #f show the acetabular or femoral aspects4 ,the right os innominatum is exemplified by ,nos4 #a1 #d and #e2 the left by ,nos4 #c and #f4 ,no4 #b shows the sacral aspect of a left ischium1 and its attachments with the pubis and ilium4 ,no4 #h is the sacral aspect of a left os pubis4 ,no4 #i is the femoral aspect of a right ,,os pubis4 ,none of the specimens are sufficiently complete to give the form of any of the bones4 ,the only known example of an entire or nearly entire pelvis at all comparable in form1 is seen in the original specimen of ,dimorphodon macronyx figured by ,buckland1 ,trans4 ,geol4 ,soc4 ,ser4 #b4 vol4 ,,iii4 p4 #bag4 ,in nearly all the fossils from the ,cambridge ,greensand the bones of the pelvis are anchylosed together4 ,the ossa innominata have been determined as right and left on the supposition that the pelvis of the ,dimorphodon is in situ1 and from the general correspondence of the form of the constituent elements with elements of the pelvis in the lower mammals1 reptiles1 and birds4 ,each os innominatum shows a hemispherical acetabulum which is slightly elongated in antero-posterior extent ,in the ,dimorphodon the bone which is superior to the cup1 that is to say1 which extends dorsally along the sacral vertebr is prolonged anteriorly as a strong narrow straight style1 the base of which is seen in the parts marked ,ilium in ,nos4 #a and #f4 ,a more perfect example may be studied in a pelvis from the ,cambridge ,greensand preserved in the collection of the ,geological survey4 ,posterior to the acetabulum a similar but stronger bony style extends for more than the length of the acetabulum1 curving slightly downward at its posterior part4 ,the dorsal outline of this portion of the bone is slightly concave4 ,the posterior horn like the anterior horn forms part of the ilium which constitutes the upper half of the acetabular cup4 ,the os innominatum contracts in antero-posterior extent below the acetabulum1 and immediately widens again in a thin concave bony expansion4 ,the anterior or pubic outline is comparatively straight1 and at right angles with the ilium2 the posterior or ischiac outline is deeply cupped where the ischium unites with the ilium1 and becoming straight extends backward at a considerable angle4 ,the ischium contributes less to the pelvic cup than either the ilium or pubis2 it is flat in front and convex on the visceral side1 rounding into the narrow flattened posterior side4 ,the pubis is separated from the ischium by a suture extending vertically through the obturator foramen4 ,the obturator foramen seen in ,no4 #i is small and oval1 less than half the diameter of the acetabulum1 situated below its ventral border4 ,it passes obliquely downward and a little forward1 and its opening makes the exterior aspect of the pubis concave2 the visceral aspect of the pubis is convex from side to side like the ischium4 ,the sacral aspect of so much of the os innominatum as is seen1 is concave from the dorsal to the ventral margins1 and is cupped behind and below the acetabulum1 the surface being rough4 ,among reptiles the ilium is chiefly behind the acetabulum1 in mammals it is chiefly in front4 ,in the over-lapping group1 ,aves1 it extends both ways4 ,among the ,amphibia the ilium is chiefly anterior to the acetabulum4 ,in ,crocodiles it has a slight extension both ways1 in ,dinosaurs the extensions are more marked and the whole arrangement approximates to birds4 ,but among animals which have been affiliated with reptiles the ,dicynodonts are the only order in which there is a pelvis so mammalian and massive4 ,if the ilium of the ,monotreme genus ,echidna had a posterior extension1 the pelvis would be altogether comparable with the pelvis of this ,pterodactyle1 and would differ chiefly in the larger obturator foramen1 the perforated acetabulum and the unanchylosed condition of the pelvic elements4 ,the pelvis of ,apteryx does not make any near approximation4 ,moreover specimens ,nos4 #c and #d show on the anterior pubic border1 about the base of the acetabulum1 a slight pit or roughness to which something has been attached1 and in the original specimen of ,dimorphodon associated with the pelvis are two triangular bones which recall something of the form of the prepubic bones of ,echidna4 ,most ,german ,pterodactyles show on the ,,os pubis an enormous prepubic bone4 ,in ,iguana the pubis forms at its anterior border1 a sharp angular process4 ,in ,chelydra the process is long and narrower1 and arises from the middle of the border4 ,in ,echidna this prepubic process has become a distinct prepubic bone and is more elongated4 ,unlike the marsupial bones it is attached to the pubis by a wide base4 ,the anterior pubic roughness of ,cambridge specimens1 and the loose bones of the ,dimorphodon1 c4 indicate the existence of structures in the ,ornithosauria homologous with the prepubic bones of the ,ornithodelphia4 ,so far as it is comparable with living animals1 the ilium is altogether avian1 differing in being narrower2 and the pubis and ischium are mammalian4 ,the upper anterior corner is the most elevated part of the acetabular border1 as in the great ,auk and some birds of vertical position of body1 and many mammals4 ,,femur4 ,pl4 #h4 ,case4 ,comp4 ,tablet4 ,specimen4 ,j b #aa #a-af ,twenty-six specimens are mounted to illustrate the ,femur4 #aj are proximal ends2 #af distal ends4 ,but in the series illustrative of species is an entire specimen of a right ,femur #d inches long4 ,fragments ,nos4 #c and #ab show proximal and distal ends twice as large1 but most of the examples are about the size of the entire femur4 ,it is a straight sub-cylindrical bone1 flattened in front1 a little compressed from front to back distally1 and 7in one type7 compressed proximally from side to side behind4 ,the distal articulation has a broad shallow channel passing down from the front and imperfectly separating two condyloid parts1 which extend a little backward and are divided behind4 ,the outer condyle extends a little outward1 and so gives the outer side of the bone at the distal end an oblique compressed aspect like that which prevails among birds and many mammals4 ,proximally the shaft contracts suddenly and is produced upward1 forward1 and inward as a rounded neck1 as long as in the femur of any mammalian carnivore1 which expands rapidly at the end to form the hemispherical ball1 which articulates with the pelvic acetabulum4 ,no4 #a shows a well-marked pit for the ligamentum teres at the back part of the ball4 ,at the proximal end of the shaft below the neck is a large pit for the obturator muscle1 and at the outer front angle a great trochanter4 ,proximally the bone can only be compared with the mammalian ,carnivora1 ,quadrumana and ,man2 distally it is avian and mammalian4 ,in one genus exemplified by specimens #e-aj the obturator pit is not developed4 ,sometimes the shaft is curved a little convexly1 outward and forward4 ,,tibia4 ,pl4 #h4 ,case4 ,comp4 ,tablet4 ,specimen4 ,j b #ab #a-aa ,eleven specimens are mounted to illustrate the tibia1 of which #a to #i are regarded as proximal ends2 and #aj1 #aa with less confidence are regarded as distal ends from which the distal epiphysis has come away4 ,it is to be anticipated that the distal end of the tibia in ,pterodactyle will when found approximate to the distal end of the tibia in the bird4 ,the bone is at the proximal end straight and sub-cylindrical1 slowly enlarging proximally2 convex behind1 except for an elevated boss some little way below the proximal articulation for the attachment of powerful muscles4 ,in front the shaft is a little flattened proximally1 with a mesial groove dividing two prominences which are apparently homologous with the ridges below the patella in birds4 ,the proximal articular surface truncates the shaft at right angles except at what is regarded as the outer front aspect1 where it rises into a small patelloid prominence4 ,it shows the impressions of two condyles1 which correspond in form with the distal end of the ,femur4 ,nos4 #c and #f are regarded as left tibia2 ,nos4 #d1 #e1 #g1 #h1 #i as examples of right tibia4 ,no specimen likely to be a fibula has been found4 ,in ,dimorphodon and in ,german ,genera the fibula is ,avian in form4 ,the ,crocodile offers some approximation to the ,pterodactyle shape in the proximal end of the ,tibia1 but the ,pterodactyle has ,avian characters in addition4 ,its straightness and length1 ridges on the front and patelloid prominence1 are ,avian4 ,,tarsus ,,or ,,tarso-,,metatarsus4 ,pl4 #h4 ,case4 ,comp4 ,tablet4 ,specimen4 ,j b #ac #a ,this fragment1 which may be the distal end of the bone corresponding to that called in birds the tarsus or tarso-metatarsus1 is badly preserved4 ,yet so close is its resemblance in form1 structure1 and apposition of the constituent bones to what obtains among birds1 that it may probably be identified as the tarsus2 while the peculiar characteristics of ,pterodactyle bones which it shows1 demonstrate that it is not from a bird1 but from an ,ornithosaurian skeleton4 ,the bones are of paper thinness1 and consist of a strong bone behind which distally appears on the inner side to be compressed and thrown backward and flattened at the side1 exactly like the inner toe in ,natatorial birds4 ,on the front of this strong support1 confluent with it1 and confluent together1 so that the places of union are only seen at the distal end and in transverse section1 are three bones1 together as wide as the bone on which they rest4 ,it does not appear possible that the distal articulations could have supported more than three digits4 ,this bone1 if correctly determined1 offers points of affinity with birds as pronounced and as important as any thing shown by the extremities1 for among reptiles a welding of the 7tarsal or7 tarso-metatarsal bones is unknown1 and here it is as absolute as in any bird1 and takes a characteristic bird shape4 ,in the ,rodent ,jerboa the metatarsus has much the same form as in a bird4 ,no phalanges have been recognised4 ,the ,vertebral ,column4 ,,atlas ,,and ,,axis4 ,pl4 #i4 ,case4 ,comp4 ,tablet4 ,specimen4 ,j c #a #a-ae ,fifteen specimens are mounted to exemplify the structures of the ,pterodactyle atlas and axis4 ,nos4 #a1 #aa1 and #b have already been figured1 and described by ,prof ,owen1 the latter as a section of a cervical vertebra4 ,the atlas centrum1 a saucer-shaped disk of bone1 commonly united more or less intimately with the centrum of the axis1 but sometimes free4 ,it presents in front a hemispherical cup for the basi-occipital1 and is flattened or slightly convex behind4 ,its neural arch is seen in ,nos4 #b1 #aj1 and #ab2 but the only specimen with the arch entire is in the museum of ,james ,carter1 ,esq4 ,the neurapophyses vary in form and size1 but always are small obliquely flattened lamellar bones1 which extend upward and backward to meet the neural arch of the axis1 just above the neural canal1 where a thin and small cross piece connects them together4 ,the distinctive aspect of these bones is given by the neural arch of the axis1 which is very much elevated1 and is formed by two flattened sides1 which meet in a vertical ridge above the neural canal1 and look forward1 outward and upward2 extending laterally more and more beyond the side of the centrum1 but not reaching so far back as the posterior articulation of the centrum4 ,each side of the neural arch at its middle part behind is produced into a thick obliquely flattened process1 the under portion of which shows the small posterior zygapophysial facets1 which look downward1 outward and backward4 ,the lateral outline of the part of the neural arch above this process is concave2 as is the lateral outline between it and the centrum4 ,behind1 the neural arch is concave1 and looks a little backward4 ,the neural canal is stirrup-shaped in front1 but is higher and sub-ovate behind4 ,the neural arch of this1 as of all the other vertebr1 except a few dorsals1 is inseparably united to the centrum1 without a trace of the line of union4 ,in the middle of the side of the vertebra1 and at what may be presumed to be the union between the neural arch and the centrum1 in a concavity1 is the pneumatic foramen4 ,it is round or oval1 and varies in form and size though not in position4 ,in ,no4 #h it exhibits the subdivided reticular structure characteristic of the pneumatic foramina of birds4 ,in ,no4 #aj1 which has a short centrum1 the pneumatic cavities are reduced to a few small perforations1 no larger than would be made with fine needles4 ,the centrum is shorter than in cervical vertebr1 commonly convex 7,no4 #h7 on the visceral surface2 often with a slight longitudinal hypapophysial ridge 7,nos4 #a2 #g2 #ab7 rarely flattened 7,no4 #aj74 ,towards the hinder part the centrum widens1 and becomes concave on the visceral surface1 sending off as do the other cervicals1 below the transversely elongated posterior articulation1 a pair of short strong apophyses4 ,the posterior articulation can only by a modification of the idea be said to conform to the cup-and-ball plan1 for though convex from above downward and convex from side to side1 the elongated transverse measurement would be three times the depth4 ,on the under side an impressed transverse line divides the articulation from the concave part of the centrum below4 ,cervical ,vertebr4 ,pl4 #i4 ,case4 ,comp4 ,tablet4 ,specimen4 ,j c #b #a-dc ,forty-three specimens are mounted to exemplify the variations in size and characters of cervical vertebr4 ,these for the most part are specific characters2 and between the axis and the first dorsal vertebra the variations in an individual were slight4 ,those nearest to the back1 as in birds1 are widest in front1 and have the highest neural arches4 ,the associated series show commonly four cervical vertebr behind the axis1 and in two cases apparently five2 never more4 ,so that as seven appears to be the number of true cervical vertebr in most if not all of the ,german ,pterodactyles1 it may be presumed that the ,cretaceous ,ornithosaurians also had this character in common1 with ,mammals1 and probably as persistent4 ,in ,iguana there are #f1 in ,monitor #g1 and in ,crocodile #h4 ,the centrum is united to the neural arch as in birds1 without a trace of suture2 sometimes the neural arch is no wider than the centrum1 sometimes it extends over the centrum on each side4 ,those forms with a narrow neural arch have the neural spine high1 and its sides look forward as well as outward4 ,the pneumatic foramen is oblique4 ,an example is figured by ,prof4 ,owen1 in the memoir on ,pterodactylus simus1 pl4 #b1 fig4 #d4 ,the forms with a wide neural arch have the neural spine rising from the middle of the dorsal surface1 erect and equally compressed from side to side4 ,the pneumatic foramen is horizontal4 ,an example is figured in ,prof4 ,owen's memoir on ,pt4 simus1 pl4 #b1 fig4 #a4 ,these two forms of cervical vertebr may be regarded as typifying two genera4 ,in both forms many characters occur in common1 and as the specimens illustrative of special modifications will be described hereafter1 the following description has been made to embrace the chief characteristics of these vertebr in ,cretaceous ,ornithosaurians4 ,the inferior aspect of the centrum is oblong 7being narrower than long71 or quadrate2 when quadrate the additional lateral expansions are external to the pneumatic foramina1 and are formed by the neural arch and zygapophyses4 ,the centrum proper is a little wider in front than behind1 and the side outlines are concave4 ,the base of the centrum is flattened1 or more or less hollow1 or more or less tumid and regularly convex2 in front there is often a mesial ridge1 which never reaches the posterior articulation1 and forms a prominent tubercle at the base of the anterior articulation4 ,at the posterior end the outline of the centrum is concave1 and mesially the bone has a hollow corresponding to the tubercle in front of the adjacent vertebra2 and the part of the centrum on each side is prolonged slightly into a strong rounded or flattened tubercle below the side borders of the posterior articulation2 these posterior processes1 in vertebr in situ1 fitted1 on each side of the mesial anterior process of the vertebra behind1 on to concavities more or less marked4 ,analagous processes are developed in the cervical vertebr of many birds4 ,all the ,cretaceous ,pterodactyles have the articular surfaces of the centrum transversely oblong1 as have some birds4 ,the posterior articulation is convex from side to side1 and convex from above downward1 and appears to extend a little further on this neural than on the hmal surface2 in outline it is commonly an elongated oval1 but sometimes attends on the upper surface of the inferior lateral tubercles4 ,the anterior articulation is transversely elongated1 concave in both directions1 and sub-triangular in outline2 that is to say1 the superior outline is more or less convex1 and from its limits to the mesial tubercle at the base1 the inferior outlines are more or less concave4 ,the neural canal is sub-circular or ovate in outline1 and quite as large as the neural canal in vertebr of ,dinornis of similar size4 ,the neural arch like the centrum has commonly a depressed appearance4 ,it always has a neural spinous process which is directed upward4 ,in the depressed type the neural surface of the vertebra is in outline usually sub-quadrate1 but concave at each side1 and concave in front and behind2 the four corners are the processes which support the zygapophysial facets1 the surface is divided into two lateral parts by the strong neural spine4 ,these lateral parts are from front to back flat1 or slightly concave1 or slightly convex2 and from the neural spine outward they are always concave4 ,the neural spine is commonly sharp in front and flattened behind4 ,the neural arch is placed well forward1 so that while a third of the neural canal remains uncovered by it behind1 rarely a sixth would be uncovered in front4 ,the anterior and posterior zygapophyses are commonly connected by a more or less rounded ridge1 undefined above1 but well defined below1 since under its posterior part at about the middle of the side of the centrum is placed the pneumatic foramen4 ,the anterior zygapophysial processes are separated from the anterior articular surface of the centrum by a more or less oblique channel4 ,towards the base of this channel in many vertebr may be seen a small and short flattened antero-posterior perforation corresponding in position with the usually large perforation for the vertebral artery4 ,if the passages are to be regarded as having subserved such a function1 it will not be without interest to remark the small relative size of the cerebellum in these animals2 since the vertebral artery conveys the blood to that region of the brain4 ,the anterior zygapophyses are strong processes directed forward and outward1 compressed a little from side to side2 they are placed at the outer sides of the anterior articular face of the centrum1 and extend in front of it4 ,the zygapophysial facet is commonly oval and looks upward and inward and forward4 ,the posterior zygapophyses are short and massive1 but otherwise correspond closely with the anterior zygapophyses1 only with all the parts reversed1 and except that necessarily they are relatively to the neural canal a little higher4 ,a sharp and well defined angular ridge1 commencing at the back of the zygapophysis1 is directed inward1 and forward1 and upward along the posterior margin of the neural arch to the top of the neural spine4 ,the posterior aspect of the neural arch is concave from side to side1 and makes a right angle with the superior lateral aspect4 ,the part of the centrum exposed behind the neural arch is convex above from side to side4 ,the pneumatic foramen between the centrum and the neural arch varies greatly in size2 it is oval and longitudinal4 ,the largest specimens have the centrum #b-a_/b inches long2 in the smallest the centrum measures #e_/hths of an inch in length4 ,in the second type of cervical vertebra the side of the centrum makes a right angle with the base1 and is separated from it by a sharp angle as in struthious birds4 ,the side of the centrum is concave1 with a few small pneumatic perforations2 and the side of the centrum1 which is high posteriorly1 rounds over the oblique ridge connecting the zygapophyses1 into the oblique lateral face of the neural arch4 ,the anterior zygapophyses are very large and the posterior zygapophyses small and placed as high as the top of the neural canal4 ,every region of the vertebral column displays pneumatic foramina1 situated as in the vertebr of birds4 ,the large proportional size of the neck-vertebr is common to some birds1 and is conspicuous in many mammals1 like the ,llama4 ,in most mammals where the vertebr have a cup-and-ball articulation1 the ball is in front1 as it is in the dorsal vertebr of the penguin1 so that those vertebr are not comparable with ,pterodactyles1 although on the under side of the centrum they similarly give off a mesial process below the cup1 and a lateral process below the ball on each side4 ,the neural spine in ,pterodactyle is commonly more developed than is the case with long-necked birds or mammals4 ,reptiles such as ,crocodiles and ,lizards have the neural spines of the neck-vertebr well developed4 ,birds differ from ,pterodactyles in the peculiar articulation of their vertebr4 ,in both the centrum is often depressed1 in both it is concave from side to side in front1 and convex from side to side behind1 but in birds it is also convex from above downward in front1 and concave from above downward behind1 while the reverse arrangement obtains in ,pterodactyles4 ,a similar condition to that of the bird is seen in the neck-vertebr of the ,kangaroo1 of ,man1 and several mammals1 only the vertical curves are less marked4 ,vertebr concave in front1 and convex behind1 and devoid of cervical ribs1 are met with among the ,lizards1 but neither ,monitor nor ,iguana offer any parallel to the form of the cervical vertebr of ,pterodactyle1 which is best matched among ,marsupials and ,birds4 ,birds commonly have more vertebr in the neck than have ,pterodactyles1 which in that respect resemble mammals and some ,lizards4 ,dorsal ,vertebr4 ,pl4 #aj4 ,case4 ,comp4 ,tablet4 ,specimen4 ,j c #c #a-bj ,twenty specimens are mounted to exemplify pectoral and dorsal vertebr4 ,like the cervical vertebr1 they include two types of form1 one with the centrum flat1 figured in pl4 #b4 fig4 #bj-bb of the memoir on ,pterodactylus ,sedgwicki1 and regarded by ,prof ,owen as anterior dorsal2 and the other form with a convex centrum1 figured #bd-be of the same plate of the same memoir1 regarded by ,prof4 ,owen as posterior dorsal4 ,following the analogy of birds such determination is as well supported as the similar reference of the two types of cervical vertebr to anterior and posterior parts of the neck1 but fuller materials compel a reference of the two types of dorsal vertebr to two different genera4 ,nos4 #a1 #c1 #f1 #g1 #h1 #i1 #aj1 #ad1 #ae1 #ai belong to the flat type4 ,nos4 #b1 #d1 #e1 #aa1 #ab1 #af1 #ag1 #ah exemplify the convex type4 ,dorsal vertebr are rare fossils2 and in the associated sets of bones never more than four dorsal vertebr are found1 rarely more than one4 ,no specimen of the type with a convex centrum occurs in the associated sets4 ,the dorsal vertebr with convex centra have all lost their neural arches except ,no4 #b4 ,the form of the centrum is half a cylinder1 as long1 or longer than wide1 but sometimes depressed1 and wider behind than in front4 ,the exterior surface is smooth1 convex from side to side1 and slightly concave from front to back4 ,the neural surface is mesially excavated4 ,both anterior and posterior articular surfaces are semicircular or sub-ovate1 being wide from side to side4 ,the anterior articulation is cupped1 concave from the neural to the hmal surface1 and concave from side to side4 ,the posterior articulation is convex from the neural to the hmal surface1 in which direction1 it usually shows striations1 and from side to side has a gentle convexity1 sometimes so slight as to be nearly flat4 ,the neural canal is large1 ovate1 and as high as is the centrum4 ,the neural arch is strong1 compressed from back to front1 and placed as usual on the anterior part of the centrum4 ,in outline it is sub-rhomboid with the sides concave4 ,there is a strong process on each side above the neural canal for a rib1 and apparently a neural spine1 but all are broken4 ,the transverse processes for the ribs are directed outward1 and a little forward1 flattened in front and behind1 the surfaces being sub-parallel1 so that in front the neural arch is concave from side to side4 ,behind1 the neural spine is directed between the transverse processes so as to over-hang the exposed part of the superior surface of the centrum4 ,at the points where the neural spine bends back from the transverse processes are the posterior zygapophyses1 high above the neural canal1 and parted from each other by an interspace as wide as the canal is high4 ,they look downward1 outward1 and backward4 ,the lateral surface below the transverse process is narrow1 flattened1 bends at a right angle with the posterior surface1 rounds into the anterior surface1 is a continuous curve with the side of the centrum1 and is concave from below upward4 ,the superior surfaces of the neural arch have the sides sub-parallel1 they are each concave from side to side2 and these surfaces are excavated for pneumatic foramina4 ,dorsal vertebr of the type with the centrum flattened closely resemble cervical vertebr with the centrum flattened1 differing chiefly in the less length of the centrum4 ,occasionally 7as in ,no4 #c7 the neural arch comes away from the body of the vertebra4 ,the centrum is very depressed1 sub-quadrate1 and wider than long2 the base is flat1 or slightly concave1 with occasionally a slight longitudinal mesial ridge2 the lateral outlines are concave1 so that the bone is pinched in from side to side4 ,the neural surface of the centrum is flat and parallel with the base1 and1 as usual1 wider behind than in front1 but the centrum is not there so high4 ,the surfaces for the neural arch are flat1 and extend nearly to the base of the centrum in front1 so that they look upward1 outward and a little forward4 ,the articular ends are remarkable for their depressed oblong character1 still preserving the anterior concavity with a small mesial process below1 as in cervical vertebr1 and similar but smaller processes at the inferior outer angles of the posterior sub-semicylindrical convexity4 ,the middle third of the anterior cup is made by the trapezoidal anterior end of the centrum2 sometimes the sutures between it and the neural arch are well marked4 ,the neural arch is large1 commonly with a sub-circular neural canal4 ,the neural spine is high1 compressed so as to have the lateral surfaces sub-parallel and rounding into each other superiorly2 and it has a less antero-posterior extent than the centrum4 ,at its base behind it widens rapidly1 and forms massive quadrate processes1 extending outward and backward1 which on the outside each have a flattened ovate zygapophysial facet1 which also looks downward4 ,above the facet and separated from it by a groove is a tubercle4 ,between the zygapophyses behind the bone is concave from side to side2 the facets are placed above the neural canal4 ,the posterior zygapophyses are placed considerably higher than the anterior zygapophyses1 and the part of the neural arch between is rather constricted from front to back4 ,the neural arch steadily widens in front down to the base of the anterior zygapophysial processes in such way that the more or less flattened lateral surface looks outward and is gently concave from above downward4 ,a ridge commencing at the tubercle over the posterior zygapophysial facet descends in a curve forward and downward1 to form the posterior border of the anterior zygapophysial process4 ,this is separated by a groove from the anterior articular surface1 and anterior part of the base of the centrum1 and has the aspect of a compressed part of the neural arch1 extending obliquely downward1 and forward1 over and beyond the articular surface of the centrum4 ,the anterior zygapophysial facets are oblong1 narrow from side to side1 and long from front to back2 they are directed forward and a little outward1 and are flattened1 make nearly a right angle behind with the front of the neural arch1 and look upward and inward4 ,they are sometimes placed as high as the top of the neural canal1 but are commonly lower4 ,around the neural canal the bone is conically impressed4 ,minute pneumatic foramina are in the usual position1 between the centrum and the neural arch2 and sometimes others behind the anterior zygapophysial process4 ,the largest specimen known has the centrum nearly an inch and a half long4 ,the dorsal vertebr in ,cambridge specimens would appear to make a nearer approximation in number to birds than to ,mammals or ,lizards or ,crocodiles1 though ,chelonians have few vertebr in the back4 ,among ,reptiles the form of the vertebra makes some approach to that of the ,monitor1 ,chameleon and ,scink4 ,in most ,mammals the dorsal vertebr have the centrum convex1 though in the lumbar region its visceral surface often becomes flattened4 ,but though very unlike there is a nearer resemblance to the lower dorsal vertebr of a ,struthious bird4 ,sacrum4 ,pl4 #aj4 ,case4 ,comp4 ,tablet4 ,specimen4 ,j c #d #a-g ,seven specimens are mounted to exemplify the ordinary structures of the ,ornithosaurian sacrum4 ,nos4 #a and #b have the centrum convex1 exactly as in the dorsal vertebr of the convex type4 ,nos4 #c-g have the centrum flattened1 following in general features the plan of the dorsal vertebr with flat centra4 ,no4 #a is a vertebra from a sacrum1 where perfect anchylosis had not been induced2 it has the neural arch well preserved1 and shows the sharp suture which united it to the preceding vertebra4 ,no4 #b shows two entire vertebr and part of a third1 which have lost the neural arches but have the centra perfectly anchylosed together4 ,the middle vertebra measures #e_/h of an inch in length1 and at the suture from side to side measures more4 ,the surface is smooth1 regularly convex from side to side1 and gently concave from back to front4 ,the last vertebra shows the articular vertebral surface2 it is convex in both directions1 and oblique1 so that a large part looks upward4 ,the anterior of the three vertebr is pinched in at the lower part of the sides of the centrum4 ,no4 #a shows that the neural surface of the centrum is deeply excavated1 making the neural canal an elongated upright oval4 ,above the centrum1 which forms only the middle third of the articular surface1 the neural arch expands on each side into a wedge-shaped transverse process1 the lower surfaces are flattened1 and continuous with the centrum1 while the upper surfaces are flat and horizontal as in birds and ,dinosaurs1 and form the platform from which arises the massive neural spine4 ,in front the transverse wedge is flattened and compressed1 so as to look forward and outward1 and in the middle shows a large ovate pneumatic foramen4 ,behind1 the wedge is compressed so as to look backward and downward4 ,the neural spine is massive and forms rather more than half the height of the vertebra4 ,it is flattened with a ridge rising near its base in front and ascending in a concave curve obliquely backward and upward4 ,the anterior parts approximate a little in front1 while the small parts posterior to the ridge approximate a little behind4 ,the sides of the neural spine approximate superiorly1 and appear to round into each other4 ,there is a notch on each side in front at the base of the neural spine1 and another above the central articulation4 ,the neural spines appear to have been united by suture4 ,it may be instructive to compare the neural spine just described with the specimens ,j4 c4 #aj4 ,of the second type or genus ,no4 #d to #g all show the anterior cup for the last lumbar vertebra4 ,no4 #c1 #e and #f all show two entire vertebr and part of a third preserved1 but no specimen shows the posterior termination of the sacrum4 ,no4 #g has the articular face of the centrum very broad1 and greatly depressed4 ,in ,no4 #f it is ovate and has the neural arch preserved2 above a semicircular neural canal it sends out on each side a short horn-like zygapophysial process4 ,no4 #d is remarkable for the small size of the circular neural canal1 the centrum when entire measuring an inch from side to side1 while the neural canal only measures #e_/af of an inch4 ,no4 #e is figured by ,prof4 ,owen4 ,no4 #d-f appear to have given off transverse processes from the sides of the centra4 ,no4 #g appears to widen into transverse processes at the point of suture between the centra4 ,in ,no4 #c the base of the sacrum is flattened1 and its sides pinched in1 and concave in outline from back to front4 ,in this hollow are small pneumatic foramina1 and between the hollows the vertebr widen in the line of the suture so as to send out strong short transverse processes or tubercles4 ,above the hollows are given out the strong horizontal quadrate pyramidal transverse processes4 ,all their sides are flattened or a little concave1 and the under side displays a large ovate pneumatic foramen4 ,each of the four angles of the transverse process gives off a ridge4 ,the lower ones descend obliquely to the anterior and posterior intersutural tubercles4 ,the upper two ascend obliquely1 in front and behind1 and form rounded ridges on the neural spine4 ,the neural spine is flattened1 moderately compressed from side to side1 and cupped a little over each transverse process4 ,in front the neural spine is flattened transversely and perpendicular2 the transverse processes are also flattened and a little in advance of the neural spine4 ,the sacrum in its general aspect is ,mammalian4 ,in the ,bird the vertebr are much more numerous and do not retain their individuality so well4 ,in ,reptiles properly so called1 the sacrum never includes more than two or three vertebr1 and those commonly remain unanchylosed4 ,but in almost any placental ,mammal in which several vertebr are anchylosed together1 a sacrum similar to that of the ,pterodactyle is met with4 ,no mammalian sacrum1 however1 is furnished with pneumatic foramina4 ,caudal ,vertebr4 ,pl4 #aj4 ,case4 ,comp4 ,tablet4 ,specimen4 ,j c #e #a-ac ,thirteen specimens are mounted to exemplify the osteology of caudal vertebr4 ,no4 #g has been figured by ,prof4 ,owen in the memoir on ,pterodactylus simus1 pl4 #b fig4 #ac-af4 ,the centrum of the largest specimens measures one inch and a quarter long1 and the vertebra is half an inch wide from side to side in the middle4 ,the smallest specimen ,no4 #ac has the centrum #c_/d of an inch long4 ,the vertebr vary in proportions1 some being much more slender than others4 ,they present a close approximation in form to the first type of cervical vertebr1 differing chiefly in being more elongated4 ,they are elongated bones constricted in the middle1 so that the outlines of the sides seen from above or below are gently concave2 the outline of the anterior end is sub-rhomboid1 the outline of the posterior end is sub-pentagonal1 as would be a transverse section of the vertebra4 ,the long outlines of the base of the centrum and of the top of the neural arch are sub-parallel4 ,the two sides of the upper surface of the neural arch are smooth1 flattened1 a little concave from back to front2 they are inclined to each other pent-house wise at about a right angle1 and are separated throughout their length by a narrow slightly elevated neural spine4 ,behind1 the neural arch is truncated transversely so as to expose the posterior neural surface of the centrum1 which is convex from side to side4 ,the outermost lateral angles of the neural arch are the posterior zygapophysial processes1 short and strong above the centrum1 with a tubercle on the upper surface1 and showing the sub-circular zygapophysial facets behind2 they look backward and downward1 and are separated by a groove from the region of the centrum4 ,under the sharp ridge which connects these zygapophyses behind1 the neural arch is excavated1 and the cup shows the termination of three canals4 ,the largest one is the upright oval of the neural canal in the middle1 on each of its sides separated by a narrow bony wall is another perforation1 very variable in size and shape1 sometimes b large as the neural canal1 but usually small and circular4 ,the anterior end of the neural arch is cut into1 so that as seen from above1 the straight sharp anterior margins diverge mesially from each other at a right angle1 and so expose to view a small anterior part of the neural surface of the centrum4 ,these lines are prolonged forward and outward1 to form the upper margin of the anterior zygapophyses1 which are compressed and prolonged over and beyond the sides of the anterior articulation1 from which they are separated by a slight groove2 the anterior and posterior zygapophyses are connected by a rounded ridge4 ,the anterior end of the neural arch is excavated1 but less so than the posterior end2 in the middle is the oval perforation of the neural canal1 and at the sides other perforations corresponding to those behind are placed a little in advance of the neural canal4 ,the anterior and posterior articular surfaces differ in no respect from those of cervical vertebr4 ,the inferior surface of the centrum is separated from the sides by two ridges parallel to the lateral concave outlines of the neural arch2 they extend from sides of the front1 more or less well marked1 to the tubercular processes at the base of the sides of the centrum behind4 ,the dice-box shaped area of the centrum so inscribed is usually concave from front to back1 and concave from side to side behind1 and convex from side to side in the middle2 this convexity is only broken in front by the development of the slight mesial hypapophysial ridge4 ,the sides are narrow1 flattened1 look downward and outward1 are a little concave from front to back1 round into the centrum and into the neural arch1 and show at about the middle a small pneumatic foramen1 which is variable in size1 but largest in ,no4 #h1 and sometimes a mere puncture4 ,the caudal vertebr differ in many ways from other animals4 ,they have neither transverse processes1 neural spines1 hypapophyses or hmapophyses4 ,in the persistence of the neural arch down the tail they resemble reptiles and birds rather than mammals1 in which nothing but the centrum persists to the end of the tail4 ,the vertebr are furnished with vertebral arteries which run through the neural arch parallel to the neural canal1 in exactly the same position as do the vertebral arteries in the neck-vertebr of the ,llama4 ,,the ,,bones ,,of ,,the ,,head4 ,pl4 #aa1 #ab4 ,the skull of ,dimorphodon differs in form and in many important details of structure from that of ,rhamphorhynchus2 and both of these types of skull are strikingly unlike that of the short-tailed animals named ,pterodactyle4 ,hence1 as it will be shown that the ,cretaceous fossils of this class belong to very distinct new genera1 there is no reason for assigning to them by anticipation any class of cranial structures4 ,the cranium of this type of animal has never been critically described1 and for all that is yet known to the contrary ,pterodactyles may differ between themselves as much as birds or mammals4 ,their affinities have been unknown4 ,therefore1 before describing bones it may be desirable to state the grounds on which the several specimens are referred to the ,ornithosauria4 ,the fossils on which this section of the memoir is founded are1 the basi-occipital and basi-temporal bones1 the anterior portion of a cranium1 the back parts of four crania1 facial bones1 and the quadrate and quadrato-jugal4 ,the crania are all no larger than that of the ,heron2 though from the ,greensand are bones and jaws indicating ,pterodactyles both smaller and larger4 ,the skulls are mostly remarkable for wanting both basi-occipital and basi-temporal bones4 ,and the specimen of basi-temporal and basi-occipital corresponds posteriorly with the ,pterodactyle atlas1 anteriorly with these crania2 it is hence concluded to have belonged to a similar animal4 ,being relatively twice as large1 it indicates that in these animals the basi-occipital condyle was proportionally larger than in known birds2 and that animals of a cognate kind had skulls probably twice the size of these4 ,the anterior basal part of the hinder sphenoid terminates in a remarkable triangular surface1 with two perforations1 which are separated by a median ridge4 ,almost entirely corresponding with this is the basal surface of the anterior part of a cranium1 fractured in front of the pituitary fossa4 ,therefore1 and as it indicates a similar capacity of brain1 it is regarded as belonging to the same kind of animal as the others 2 but being five times the size1 it must1 if the proportions of the ,heron were preserved1 have been part of a head a yard long4 ,now1 as there is no other animal with the same texture of bone1 or exhibiting with high organization the same diversity of size1 these cranial fragments are referred to the jaws and bones of ,pterodactyle4 ,so marked are their structures that many quarry-men refer vertebrate fossils to their several orders with almost as much accuracy as would a practised anatomist4 ,basi-occipital and ,basi-temporal4 ,pl4 #aa4 ,basi-occipital1 ,owen1 ,sup4 ,cret4 ,rep4 p4 #f1 ,t4 #a1 figs4 #aa1 #ab1 #ac4 ,case4 ,comp4 ,tablet4 ,j c #g ,this bone was not found associated with any set of fossils that would induce us to refer it to one species more than to another4 ,its ,ornithosaurian character was probable2 and ,prof4 ,owen described it in his last memoir on the ,greensand ,pterodactyles4 ,but though indubitably basi-occipital1 it is so anomalous in some respects that the ,professor regarded the under as the upper surface2 since then the investing phosphate of lime has been removed1 and the bone is now described in what appears to be its natural position4 ,viewed from above the fossil divides into two parts2 the occipital condyle1 and an anterior1 wide1 transversely oblong extension terminating at each side in a strong short horn4 ,the posterior half of the condyle shows large cancelli as though so much of it had been covered by the articular cartilage4 ,the sides of the condyle converge1 so that posteriorly it is only two-thirds of the width it has at the foramen magnum1 which would appear to indicate a comparatively slight lateral motion of the head4 ,the condyle is hemispherical posteriorly and superiorly2 there is a depression between it and the great foramen of the skull2 inferiorly it is flat4 ,it is #g_/af of an inch long2 posteriorly #i_/af wide1 nearly #f_/af of an inch high anteriorly4 ,it terminates in front superiorly in an elevated transverse ridge4 ,on removing the matrix1 the anterior surface of this occipital bone was found to be concave2 yet as nothing but cancellous structure is seen it may be but imperfectly ossified or more probably1 imperfectly preserved4 ,and the bottom of this cup expands forward in a thin sheet of bone a quarter of an inch long and half an inch wide1 which on the under side is continuous with the base of the condyle4 ,on each side of this floor and partly extending in front of it1 and below it1 is an irregular piece of bone1 half an inch long1 resembling anterior zygapophyses of cervical vertebr4 ,though in most vertebrates the basi-occipital enters into the basal floor of the skull1 the median bones are either so placed that they rest one upon another from before backwards or abut against one another nearly perpendicular1 so that the basi-sphenoid comes commonly to underlap and partly hide the basi-occipital4 ,nowhere among ,amphibia or ,reptilia do ,i know of the reverse position occurring4 ,in some fishes there is an approach to it4 ,thus a slight anterior bony expansion of the basi-occipital in the ,cod fits partly into a horizontal slit in the basi-sphenoid,a4 ,in the ,carp the basi-occipital has a spathulate basal expansion like that of ,pterodactyle1 but it is underlapped by the basi-sphenoid,s4 ,in some mammals the under side of the basi-occipital extends further forward than does the neural side1 as for example in the ,sheep and ,goat2 while in a few others1 as in the ,walrus1 the reverse positions obtain4 ,footnote ,s3 ,parasphenoid of ,prof4 ,huxley4 ,but it is among ,birds that the structure described in ,pterodactyle is evident and characteristic4 ,for although the bony plate under the sphenoid1--,mr ,parker's basi-temporals1--is mostly anchylosed to the bones about it1 and less with the occipital than with others1 its position and relations are quite the same as those of the expanded flap of this ,pterodactyle basi-occipital4 ,therefore it is identified with the basi-temporal bones4 ,back of the ,cranium4 ,pl4 #aa4 ,case4 ,comp4 ,tablet4 ,specimen4 ,j c #h #a ,this fossil is an inch high1 rather wider1 and half an inch long4 ,it well shows the bones at the back of the skull1 the basi-cranial bones1 and the bones posterior to the frontals1 which roof in the ,cranium4 ,there are in it striking resemblances to the back of the skull of some ,natatores1 as the ,grannet and ,cormorant1 and of some ,grallatores as the ,heron1 and ,gallinaceous birds as the ,cock4 ,the base of the skull4 ,the bones here indicated are the basi-occipital1 basi-temporal1 and basi-sphenoid4 ,the former two have come away as from an articular joint1 and are wanting4 ,the basi-occipital does not enter into the floor of the cranial cavity1 and only rims the foramen magnum4 ,but its basi-temporal expansion rests beneath the posterior part of the basi-sphenoid forming the base of the skull2 its long convex anterior end fits into the concave groove at the back of the anterior part of the sphenoid4 ,the squamous basi-temporal bone appears in this species to have been as long as the foramen magnum is wide1 and to have been relatively thicker than in the other form already described4 ,the basi-sphenoid is a thin expanded bone forming the floor for the cerebellum1 and terminating anteriorly in a triangular mass1 while the slightly convex part behind1 covered with the basi-temporals1 is nearly square4 ,it enters into the foramen magnum1 forming its lower part2 and is confluent with the ex-occipitals behind1 with the periotic1 alisphenoid and perhaps with the squamosal at the side2 and as in birds all these sutures are obliterated4 ,this is probably the only instance in the ,animal ,kingdom in which the basi-sphenoid takes so important and singular a share in the functions of the basi-occipital bone4 ,the anterior part of the basi-sphenoid projects below the posterior part1 is nearly flat on the basal surface1 and forms an equilateral triangle with the apex in front and base behind4 ,in the middle of the triangular bone is a slight longitudinal ridge1 and behind the middle of each outer side a rather large foramen which appears to be the inferior opening for the carotid artery4 ,the triangular part is hollow and as long as the quadrate portion4 ,the lateral parts of this anterior bone are nearly flat4 ,they converge upwards and are rounded in front to form the boundary of the pituitary fossa1 and do not appear to have terminated in a spine4 ,above are the alisphenoids4 ,the upper part of the skull is divided into two segments by a strong straight transverse ridge1 which leaves the occipital bones behind1 and the parietal c4 in front4 ,the occipital bones anchylosed together are about two-thirds the width of the foramen magnum1 and of the parietal bones1 with which latter the supra-occipital makes an angle of #de4 ,the surface is irregular1 and especially is marked by a deep concavity just above each ex-occipital4 ,the supra-occipital projects slightly over the plane of the foramen magnum1 to which the strong ridge bounding the segment in front is parallel4 ,the great foramen is nearly round1 being slightly compressed at the upper part of the sides3 it measures #c_/h of an inch high and is nearly as wide4 ,the occipital bones make with those at the base of the skull an angle of about #ade or #aej4 ,in outline they are a transverse diamond shape4 ,the mastoid portion is not to be distinguished from the other bones1 but appear to terminate the sides of the strong occipital crest1 which by posterior compression of the squamosals and parietals1 becomes very strong1 and makes the backward boundary of the temporal foss4 ,this crest is in the same plane with the anterior border of the basi-temporals4 ,the parietals meet above in a slight ridge4 ,they are two rectangular bones twice as wide as long1 forming a semicircular roof for the brain1 which looks outward and a little backward4 ,anteriorly these bones unite with the frontals in a slightly flexuous transverse line2 and inferiorly they are connected with the periotic1 the squamosal1 and perhaps with the anterior point of the alisphenoid3 they do not descend to the plane of the articulations of the free quadrate bones4 ,the surface is smooth1 and on the upper part flat1 but concave below from side to side4 ,below these parietals are the squamosals and alisphenoids1 but the suture between them is not seen4 ,they are in form a trapezium where the short side is anterior1 and the lower third is folded inward so as to be confluent with the anterior part of the sphenoid4 ,the fold forms a ridge1 which ,i suppose may run obliquely over the alisphenoid4 ,the unfolded squamosal part is a flat and smooth oblong1 with parallel sides1 the bones are in parallel planes and nearly perpendicular to the base of the skull4 ,where the alisphenoid joins the sphenoid1 there is a considerable concavity1 above which is a small circular impression4 ,these strips approximate inferiorly1 so that the width of the skull there is rather more than half what it is at their outer margins4 ,they shut off the pituitary body in front of them1 and appear to form part of the wall for the orbit of the eye4--,the slightly convex1 lateral1 squamosal parts above the fold continue the circular transverse outline of which the parietals are the upper half4 ,they extend anterior to the parietals1 and on the inside give attachment to the frontals4 ,like the parietals1 they make a sharp bend outward at their hinder border1 and form the lateral terminations of the occipital ridge1 which is the widest part of this fossil4 ,the only portion of the specimen now to be described is the large region at each side looking downward1 which extends from the occipital ridge to the sphenoid4 ,it is an irregular pentangular hollow with many cavities1 the hinder of which are for the ear4 ,two cavities above these1 under the widest part of the skull1 appear to be a double articulation for the quadrate bone4 ,the outer transverse one with the squamosal is separated by a deep groove from the inner and more vertical one1 which may therefore be regarded as with the petrosal bone4 ,these excavations form the posterior half of the pentagon4 ,the anterior half is a smooth rhombus not separable from the basi-sphenoid4 ,such is the external appearance of the occipital and parietal segments of the skull of a ,cambridge ,pterodactyle4 ,each segment forms a large ring of thin bone1 inclosing part of a brain-cavity as large as that of a bird and shaped like that of a bird2 and which moreover is made up of the same bones as the cranium of a bird2 and these are in almost exactly the same proportions as those of the ,common ,cock4 ,my own investigations do not substantiate ,wagner's discovery1 that the back part of the skull resembles that of the ,monitor4 ,iguana would have offered a slightly nearer comparison1 but they both differ from ,cambridge specimens of ,pterodactyles in characters like these4 ,in the lizard1 ,the cranial bones do not enclose the brain4 ,there is no division of the back of the skull into an occipital segment and a parietal segment by a girdling crest4 ,the squamosal bone does not enter into the cranial wall4 ,the quadrate bone does not articulate with the wall of the brain-case4 ,while the peculiar backward development of wings of the parietal in a diverging ,v form1 give the ,lizard skull an aspect of its own4 ,so that it must be asserted that the differences of these ,pterodactyles from ,lizards are so wide as to preclude comparison4 ,with the ,crocodile1 in which the cranial bones are massive1 and the quadrate bone firmly packed in the skull1 comparison would be no less difficult4 ,the ,delphinid1 in both the form of the jaws and of the back of the head1 give some support to ,wagler's fancy1 in putting the ,pterodactyle into his curious creation1 the ,gryphi,t4 ,but in the porpoises the parietal bones form as narrow a band as they do in the ,duck2 and are quite unlike the bones here described4 ,in the ,dolphin the two condyles almost unite into one semicircular condyle 7in young specimens71 owing to the enormous development of the ex-occipitals1 which almost if not entirely exclude the basi-occipital from the foramen magnum4 ,the dolphin moreover has no quadrate bone4 ,but notwithstanding the absence of a division into occipital and parietal segments1 the form and arrangement of the bones in the skull of the porpoises approximate more to the ,cambridge ,pterodactyles than is the case with ,lizards4 ,footnote ,t3 ,the ,gryphi are a class of animals intermediate between ,birds and ,mammals according to ,wagler1 and including ,pterodactyles1 ,ichthyosaurus1 ,plesiosaurs1 ,ornithorhynchus1 and ,myrmecophaga4 ,but with ,birds the correspondence is so close that it would be difficult to discover differences4 ,that one of the condition of the occipital bone seems to be the most important2 another is1 that from the relatively smaller size of the cerebellum the parietal bones appear to cover a larger part of the cerebrum2 and a third is the strong triangular condition of the sphenoid in front of the sella tursica4 ,with these exceptions there is nothing to distinguish the fossil described from the cranium of a bird4 ,back of another ,cranium4 ,pl4 #aa4 fig4 #a1 #b4 ,case4 ,comp4 ,tablet4 ,specimen4 ,j c #h #b ,another cranium has occurred which must be referred to a different genus4 ,its preservation is less perfect1 but it similarly exhibits the occipital and parietal segments of the skull4 ,all the bones are blended together without a trace of a suture4 ,the occipital region is flat4 ,its outline is not defined owing to the extent to which the sharp crest1 in which it terminated outwardly1 has been broken away4 ,the occipital condyle is broken off4 ,the foramen magnum is of an ovate form--flattened at the base4 ,the ex-occipitals at its sides are impressed as though from contact with the neurapophyses of the atlas4 ,mesially1 over the foramen magnum is a vertical elevated crest 7now rubbed away71 which may have given attachment to a bone like that post-superoccipital crest described by ,quenstedt in the ,pterodactylus suevicus4 ,the occipital region makes a great angle with the flat basi-temporal region1 as in birds4 ,the parietal region is convex from below upward1 the lateral parts converging towards the crown1 which however presents a broken and worn surface4 ,from side to side the squamosal and parietal bones are concave1 owing to the extended occipital crest behind1 and the rapid widening of the skull in front caused by the large size of the brain4 ,in front is seen a section of the brain-cavity4 ,it is very like in form to the two halves of a pear put together side by side with the stalk downward4 ,i have removed some of the phosphate of lime from the brain-cavity1 and although it has not been excavated to the cerebellum1 the great depth of the brain is well seen1 and the convex character of the cerebral lobes1 between which a crest of bone descends mesially as in the ethmo-sphenoid mass next described4 ,at each of the lower outer angles of the brain1 extending into the cancellous brain-walls to the outermost film1 is an ovoid convexity1 covered with a thin film of bone4 ,they entirely correspond with the optic lobes1 being in exactly the same position as in birds1 only relatively rather small4 ,underneath the optic lobe on the outside is a small concavity1 apparently the articulation for the quadrate bone4 ,the basi-sphenoid mass below the brain is of considerable height1 the upper half flat and smooth1 the lower half fractured and cancellous4 ,in the main this skull is like the other one1 differing chiefly in the depth of the sphenoid1 in the mesial ridge between the cerebral lobes1 in showing the optic lobes1 and in having anchylosed basi-temporal bones4 ,there would hence appear to have been considerable variations in the skulls of ,pterodactyles even in the ,cambridge ,greensand4 ,orbito-ethmo-sphenoid bone4 ,pl4 #aa4 ,case4 ,comp4 ,tablet4 ,j c #i ,the symmetrical bone which ,i have so named is a wedge-like mass tapering in front1 keeled above2 flattened below1 and cupped behind on each side4 ,it belonged to a very much larger animal than the last fossil1 and probably to a very different genus4 ,the inferior surface is triangular1 an inch and an eighth wide behind1 at the base1 and an inch and a quarter long2 but it is broken at both ends4 ,in its longitudinal median line is a strong keel stopping short in front1 dying away behind1 and forming with the compressed margins a considerable hollow on each side1 at the back part of which is a large oval foramen4 ,this surface1 though five times the size1 corresponds in form1 ridges1 and foramina with the anterior part of the sphenoid described in the article on the back of the cranium4 ,the posterior surface is at right angles to the inferior one1 but its lower third shows only fractured phosphate of lime filling perhaps the anterior part of the pituitary fossa4 ,its upper part also is broken4 ,but on each side is a large concavity measuring in the fractured fossil an inch and a quarter high1 three quarters of an inch wide1 and half an inch deep from the unbroken median ridge where the cups become confluent at their base4 ,the whole specimen is two and a quarter inches high4 ,from the determination of the under side it follows that these smooth hollows1 over each of which an impressed mesial line descends obliquely outward1 are a part of the anterior boundary of the brain4 ,from the middle of the outer convex border of the oval remains of these cups for the cerebral hemispheres1 a strong blunt ridge descends obliquely down the sides of the bone to terminate the compressed anterior end of the bone just in front of the hypapophysial ridge of the sphenoid4 ,above this ridge the bone is much compressed anteriorly1 forming a strong straight mesial keel above1 which rapidly approximates to the base2 the height of the bone in front being one inch and a half1 which is also its extreme length4 ,the region below the oblique ridge is a concavity1 but it is a little compressed from side to side behind1 and has the same anterior compression1 so that the elongated oval of the fracture at the anterior end of the bone is only three-eighths of an inch wide4 ,the superior ridge will probably have supported the frontals1 and the anterior end would terminate in the orbito-sphenoid4 ,the lateral ridges appear to correspond with what ,prof4 ,huxley has described in the ,ostrich as the ridge indicative of a supra-presphenoid ossification pointed out by ,klliker4 ,the groove which is here noticed on the cerebral surface may indicate the same division4 ,if so1 the upper and anterior part of the mass would be the ethmoid4 ,this mass offers a considerable resemblance to the frontal portion of the skull of a dolphin 7e4 g4 ,delphinus delphis7 from which the maxillary1 premaxillary1 palatine and nasal bones have been removed4 ,but in the ,porpoise the mesial ridge dividing the cerebral hemispheres is not prolonged so far forward as in the ,pterodactyle2 the cranial bones are often as smooth on the inside4 ,notwithstanding ,wagner's assurance that the ,pterodactyle skull is very like a ,monitor's1 he would have looked in vain for an ossification in ,monitor1 ,iguana1 or other ,lizards1 comparable with this mass4 ,and although the brain is closed in front by bones in ,serpents1 it is by the frontal bones1 which form a covering for nearly the whole of the conical cerebrum4 ,nor in the ,crocodile is there any ossified mass in front of the brain1 although the brain approximates nearer to ,birds than is the case with other living ,reptiles4 ,among ,birds such a structure as that of the ,pterodactyle is characteristic1 but no bird has it so massive and mammal-like1 though an approximation is made in some thick-skulled birds like ,ciconia marabou4 ,and in birds it usually is prolonged much further forward than appears to have been the case with ,pterodactyle1 where from the rapid tapering of the mass in front it appears to have ended in a vertical ridge like that in ,parrots and ,birds with a moveable beak4 ,in ,birds there is usually a median ridge dividing the cerebral hemispheres1 but there is also often a small olfactory lobe prolonged in front of the cerebrum1 to which nothing analogous is indicated in these fossils4 ,,natural ,,mould ,,of ,,the ,,brain ,,cavity ,,of ,a ,,cambridge ,,ornithosaurian,u4 7,cast47 ,pl4 #aa4 ,footnote ,u3 ,for the opportunity of making this description1 ,i am indebted to the kindness of ,john ,francis ,walker1 ,esq41 ,m4,a41 ,f4,g4,s41 ,f4,c4,s41 c41 who some time since forwarded to me the whole of his rarer ,ornithosaurian remains for description in the ,geological ,magazine1 ,the original specimen is in the collection of ,j4 ,f4 ,walker1 ,esq41 of ,sidney ,sussex ,college4 ,when found it only displayed the front of the cerebral hemispheres1 and ,mr4 ,walker generously gave me permission to remove the investing cancellous bone and phosphate of lime1 and thus exhibit the form of the cerebrum and its relations to the cerebellum4 ,the lower part of the brain is not preserved4 ,but adherent to the sides of the fossil are still left parts of the temporal bones1 and part of the bone at the back of the orbit which closes in the brain4 ,the form of the cerebellum is not quite perfect behind1 but it must have been unusually small4 ,the cerebral lobes taken together are much wider from side to side than from back to front1 and have a transverse elliptical outline1 except for the mesial notch behind for the cerebellum4 ,the lobes are a little flattened above1 and divided from each other by a deep mesial groove1 which makes each lobe convex from side to side4 ,they are well rounded at the front and at the sides1 and are a little compressed towards each other below in the region of the orbits4 ,behind they become covered superiorly as in birds with a greatly thickened part of the squamosal and parietal bones4 ,the surface of the cerebrum is smooth4 ,there is no indication of a pineal gland4 ,the cerebellum is small1 like a pea between two filberts4 ,it is sub-hemisphercal1 is placed close against the cerebrum1 and appears to give off narrow lateral parts1 like those seen in many birds1 only that they abut against the back of the cerebral lobes as in the ,hare and some ,mammals4 ,in no reptile is there a brain in which the cerebrum embraces the front of the cerebellum1 or in which it attains to such an enormous size4 ,ftal ,mammals 7e4 g4 the horse and the sheep71 even when they have attained to a considerable bulk1 and many adult mammals1 still have the optic lobes dividing the cerebrum from the cerebellum as in ,reptiles4 ,the only ,mammal which shows any near approximation to this brain is the ,ornithorhynchus1 in which the cerebellum is very small1 but the cerebrum is not so well rounded in front4 ,the form approximates to the brain in ,man4 ,but with ,birds the resemblance is so close--with the owl and the goose--that there is no character to distinguish the brain of the fossil animal from those of the recent ones4 ,a section of the cerebrum in this specimen entirely corresponds with a section of the brain-cavity in the second skull described1 as does the backward extension of the cerebrum with the extent of the cerebral cavity1 and the narrow cerebellum with the narrow channel parallel to the walls of the foramen magnum1 as in ,gallus domesticus and ,birds4 ,the front of the brain corresponds with the cast of the front of the cerebral lobes taken from the ,ethmo-sphenoid mass4 ,thus the specimens agree among themselves1 and prove the ,pterodactyle to have had a brain indistinguishable from that of a ,bird4 ,and when it is remembered how distinctive this kind of brain is1 and that it approximates rather towards the higher ,mammals than towards ,reptiles1 the fact attains unusual importance in determining the ,pterodactyle's place in nature4 8,,neural ,,arch ,,of ,,sacral ,,vertebra1 8,,vomer4 ,pl4 #ab4 ,frontal787 ,owen4 ,palontographical1 #ahei ,pl4 #d1 fig4 #f1 #g1 #h4 ,case4 ,comp4 ,tablet4 ,specimen4 ,j c #aj #a-c ,in #ahei ,prof4 ,owen described with doubt as the ,frontal of ,pterodactyle1 a symmetrical bone4 ,a smaller but more perfect specimen has since been obtained for the ,woodwardian ,museum2 and a fragment of intermediate size is in the rich collection of the ,rev4 ,t4 ,g4 ,bonney4 ,from the descriptions already given it is impossible for it to be the frontal4 ,there is no proof that it is a skull bone4 ,if of ,pterodactyle the compressed lateral spaces could only be part of the nasal passages1 or the impressions of a palatine or pterygoid articulation4 ,and as the external surface of every specimen is keeled1 and as the palatal surface of the upper jaw of every known ,greensand ,pterodactyle is keeled1 and as the concavities slightly converge to the keel1 it might be a bone from the under side of the head1--the vomer4 ,the smallest specimen is a compressed sub-semicircular bone #a-a_/d inch long1 #i_/af inch high1 and a #a_/d inch thick4 ,the under surfaces converge to form a strong keel1 which is flattened off behind4 ,above this1 the posterior third of the bone is compressed obliquely to half the thickness1 as though a bone had over-lapped this area on each side4 ,if the oval spaces are nares1 that bone might have been the pterygoid or palatine4 ,three-fifths of the remainder of the bone are taken up by the smooth oval depressions1 which might be the inner walls of the nares2 and above this is a margin of bone widening into the triangular compressed part in front1 which1 if the fossil is rightly determined1 must have fitted into the posterior end of the maxillary or anterior end of the palatine bones4 ,a specimen collected by the ,rev4 ,t4 ,g4 ,bonney is preserved on the sacral side of a left os innominatum with the keel downward4 ,it appears to show a sutural surface from which an anterior part has come away4 ,and if this specimen is compared with the neural arch of the sacral vertebra ,j4c4#d4a1 it will be found to correspond entirely4 ,it is not impossible that c4#aj4a1 #b may be vomerine1 and c4#aj4c sacral1 but there are no distinctive characters between the specimens to warrant such a determination4 ,,quadratum4 ,pl4 ,,ii4 and ,quadrato-,jugal4 ,case4 ,comp4 ,tablet4 ,specimen4 ,j c #aa #a-d ,in the ,woodwardian ,museum are two distal ends of the quadrate bone and two other fragments showing the quadrato-jugal with it4 ,quadrate4 ,the smallest specimen is #a_/b an inch over the articular surface for the lower jaw and a quarter of an inch thick4 ,it is concave from side to side in front where it shows a large pneumatic foramen near the basal end2 it is bent from the articulation a little backward4 ,it is convex behind2 and between the foramen and the articulation sends inward and forward a great wing like that of the quadratum in birds4 ,the specimens are broken short off and do not show any articulation above1 where the bone contracts4 ,the distal articulation is double1 like two long cones placed together2 that in front having the base outward1 while the hinder one has the base on the inner side4 ,the largest specimen1 which is much broken1 shows the articulation half an inch thick4 ,quadrato-jugal4 ,this is a thin flat squamous bone1 apparently of a transverse diamond shape1 which is anchylosed to the anterior lateral margin of the quadrate1 at right angles to the articulation4 ,the lower margin is straight1 as is the upper anterior margin1 which appears to have received the malar bone above4 ,the upper posterior side is broken1 but shows a large foramen near to the side of the quadrate4 ,the base of the diamond is at the articulation1 and at its apex is a small fragment of smooth surface1 either part of a foramen1 or the orbit of the eye4 ,in this specimen the articulation1 which is broken1 is about #c_/d of an inch wide1 #c_/h of an inch thick4 ,the remaining piece of the quadrate is an inch long4 ,the quadrato-jugal is an inch and #c_/af high1 and between its broken ends #a-c_/d inch long4 ,it is thick and strong where joining the quadrate1 but the rest of the bone is about an #a_/hth of an inch thick4 ,the quadrate bone is ,avian in possessing a pneumatic foramen1 and ,avian in the form of so much of the distal end as is preserved1 and in the articulation for the lower jaw4 ,the process which it sends inward on the inside is probably for the pterygoid bone1 after the manner of ,birds4 ,before anchylosis with the quadrato-jugal bone set in1 as may be seen in ,j4c4#aa4d1 the union was made by a hemispherical knob on the outside of the quadrate1 as in ,gallus domesticus4 ,the squamose quadrato-jugal is a distinctive character4 8,,pterygoid ,,end ,,of ,,palatine ,,bone4 ,pl4 #ab4 ,case4 ,comp4 ,tablet4 ,specimen4 ,j c #ad #a-b ,this determination is conjectural4 ,its form is such as would make it probable that it is part of the head4 ,a more perfect specimen is seen in ,j4c4#a4b4g4 ,the best specimen is a compressed sub-quadrate fragment of bone terminating at one end in a long reniform articular surface1 and at the other end in a fracture where the bone is rapidly thickening4 ,a side1 regarded as the outer one1 is flattened1 being slightly concave in length1 and slightly convex from side to side4 ,the form of the inner side of the bone is determined by the inward curve of the thick part of the articular surface1 which sends a rounded ridge obliquely on to the side1 so that while it is concave from side to side at the articulation1 at the fracture it is convex from side to side4 ,all the specimens are large1 the articulation being not less than an inch long4 ,,premaxillary ,,bones ,pl4 #ab4 appear to be developed as in birds4 ,an account of their structure will be found in the notes on the species1 page #aab4 ------------ ,,os ,,articulare ,,and ,,proximal ,,end ,,of ,,lower ,,jaw4 ,pl4 #ab4 ,case4 ,comp4 ,tablet4 ,specimen4 ,j c #ab #a-f ,prof4 ,owen has described in a ',palontographical' monograph the proximal end of a mandible in which the sutures are obliterated4 ,but there is one specimen of a young right ramus showing the inner and under part of the mandible to be the surangular bone which unites with the angular or outer bone by a longitudinal and vertical suture traversing on the inner side the great upper groove2 and on the surangular the greater part of the articular bone rests4 ,the articulation is strong and double1 consisting of a deep transverse hollow1 bounded by a strong over-locking ridge in front and a slight ridge behind2 and this area is divided into two tapering furrows by a strong oblique and rounded crest1 which passes from behind inward and forward4 ,just behind the articulation is a 8pneumatic aperture1 and then the upper surface tapers to the under surface1 forming a heel1 of which one specimen measuring an inch deep on the inside of the articulation has #c_/d of an inch still left and is more than #a_/d inch thick at the fracture4 ,in a specimen belonging to the ,rev4 ,t4 ,g4 ,bonney the outside of the jaw is #aa_/af of an inch deep1 and under the articulation #e_/af of an inch deep4 ,the articular area is #c_/d of an inch wide and #f_/af of an inch long4 ,seven specimens indicate four species4 ,the proximal end of the lower jaw is entirely ,avian4 ,the pneumatic aperture1 as in birds1 is placed behind the articulation1 which is shaped as in many birds4 ,commonly in ,ornithosaurians the bones are anchylosed and all trace of sutures obliterated1 as in most birds4 ,in the ,goose1 however1 the six elements of each side are sometimes as readily separated as in reptiles4 ,and in some ,pterodactyles the bones separate4 ,,the ,,dentary ,,bone ,pl4 #ab4 ,the dentary bone consists of a single piece1 as in birds and chelonians2 and differs from both in being provided with teeth4 ,it is described under the species ,o4 machrorhynchus1 page #aac4 ------------ ,,the ,,teeth4 ,pl4 #ab4 ,case4 ,comp4 ,tablet4 ,specimen4 ,j c #ag #a-ci ,the first three teeth are usually larger than those which are placed behind them1 in this respect rather resembling some fossil reptiles than ,dolphins1 and presenting a character like that seen in the ,dimorphodon4 ,they are placed in oblique oval sockets4 ,they have a single fang like ,cetaceans1 ,edentates1 ,reptiles1 and like the premaxillary teeth of ,mammals4 ,cambridge specimens of jaws are not sufficiently perfect to show whether the teeth are limited to the premaxillary bone2 but this appears to be the case in ,pterodactylus crassirostris 7,goldf471 and probably in ,ornithocheirus compressirostris 7,owen71 ,palontographical ,society1 #ahea1 ,pl4 #bg1 and is so regarded by ,professor ,owen in his later writings4 ,yet the significance of this fact seems to have been forgotten1 and ,cuvier's dictum about their teeth still has influence4 ,he says1 ,the teeth1 by which the examination of an animal ought always to be commenced1 here present nothing equivocal4 ,they are all simple1 conical1 and nearly alike1 as in the crocodiles1 monitors1 and other lizards4 ,but1 on the one hand1 the ,dolphins demonstrate that a mammal might have similar teeth even in the maxillary bone2 and1 on the other hand1 since teeth in the premaxillary bone always are single-fanged1 and commonly have a simple sub-conical crown1 there is absolutely no evidence in the teeth of the affinities of the animal1 which1 so far as this portion of its economy went1 might as well have been a fish or a mammal as anything else4 ,in the succession there is nothing very distinctive4 ,in the ,crocodile one tooth comes up under another1 as is commonly the case with mammals2 and in mammals the fangs of the old teeth are often partially absorbed so that the teeth drop out into the mouth4 ,in the ,pterodactyle the new teeth came up on the inner side1 as in the ,ichthyosauria--a tribe of animals as singular in their affinities as the ,ornithosauria4 ,occasionally specimens show a small furrow on the inner side of the fang1 indicating absorption1 but there is nothing to show how many times the teeth were renewed3 in the ,dolphins there is but one set1 and in ,crocodiles the teeth are replaced many times4 ,in form and size the teeth are very variable4 ,they are directed obliquely forward1 and are curved backward and inward4 ,they taper in an elongate cone1 compressed from side to side1 flattened on the outside1 moderately convex on the inside2 rarely the sides meet in a ridge after the plan of ,pliosaurus1 ,megalosaurus1 ,dakosaurus1 c42 more frequently the lateral margins round into each other4 ,usually the enamel is quite smooth1 sometimes1 as in ,no4 #a1 it is finely striated and wrinkled4 ,some teeth are nearly circular and some quite straight4 ,the ovate fang contracts below1 conically1 and is closed1 leaving a long hollow pulp-cavity in its interior4 ,nos4 #i1 #aj show the marks of the successional teeth on their inner sides4 ,no4 #aa appears to have had the crown slightly worn at the tip during the animal's lifetime4 ,in transverse section of the crown the tooth structure resembles ,ichthyosaurus1 ,cetaceans1 and ,bats4 ,the dentine is filled with calciferous tubes which radiate as in ,ichthyosaurus1 and towards the centre of the tooth are seen in transverse section to present many angles1 almost like radiated corpuscles4 ,they are separated by interspaces of their own width1 and run towards the circumference1 sometimes straight and sometimes wavy1 parallel to each other4 ,they send off branches usually at right angles which anastomose with the adjoining tubes4 ,the dentine is in concentric layers1 and shows layers of sub-circular cells as in the teeth of ,mammals4 ,the enamel is a thin transparent layer with fewer and finer tubes than the dentine4 ------------ ,a ,,summing ,,up4 ,the story of the structure of the ,ornithosaurians of the ,cambridge ,greensand has now been told1 and it only remains to gather up the threads of their affinities and determine the ,pterodactyle's place in nature4 ,but before doing so1 so various in importance are the characters enumerated1 that ,i would first offer a few remarks on the classificational value of characters among the ,reptilia1 with which ,pterodactyles have been most commonly grouped4 ,the naturalist who only examines organisms now living on the earth1 symbolizes to himself1 by the term ,reptile1 a definite sum of characters1 with definite subdivisions and subordinate grouping1 to which the extinct types of life extricated from the rocks cannot entirely be adapted4 ,when the fragmentary1 and often isolated or ill-associated1 bones of fossilized animals are contrasted with corresponding bones in the skeletons of ,serpents1 ,crocodiles1 ,lizards and ,turtles1 not infrequently it is found that the characters attributed to different ,ordinal groups are interlaced in a single individual with a type of organization peculiar to itself1 and important as are the modifications of existing orders4 ,these characters occasionally are grouped with others which in living animals had been deemed characteristic of ,fishes1 ,amphibia1 ,birds1 and ,mammals4 ,the ,reptilia of the ,palontologist is therefore a vast and provisional group1 ever acquiring new characters1 to which no diagnosis can be applied4 ,and although certain empirical characters have served to allocate the specimens in their several orders1 in general with sufficient accuracy1 yet from the imperfect preservation of some of the remains1 or the imperfect extent to which their structures are known1 and the want of recognised canons by which to measure their relative values1 it has not been possible to discuss the relations of the several orders to each other or with the larger groups on which some of them impinge4 ,classifications represent more or less faithfully the gradational increase in the sum of the characters of an organism1 as well as the increase in importance that those character severally attain4 ,thus gathering1 so far as may be1 from the chaos of individuals1 a common plan of structures on which the genus1 order1 or class is moulded from a less specialized group of organs4 ,the fundamental structures of a vertebrate animal1 so far as their persistent importance can be measured1 are1 those connected with ,i4 ,perpetuating the race4 ,,ii4 ,construction of the brain4 ,,iii4 ,circulation and oxidation of the blood4 ,,iv4 ,locomotion1 i4e4 skeleton1 muscles1 c4 ,and these characteristics are for the most part so interlinked1 that it becomes difficult to assign to one order of animals a relative superiority over another order2 since when a single set of organs is prominently developed in one group it often happens that another set of organs has a like pre-eminence in an allied group4 ,thus among reptiles it might be considered that ,crocodiles have the best hearts1 and ,turtles the best lungs4 ,and since these structures in their functions severally modify and determine the use of other structures1 the meaning that terms like ,crocodilian and ,chelonian really have is that they represent the aspect of ,reptilian organization when seen through the specialization of respiration1 or circulation of the blood4 ,the soft parts thus determining the nutrition and function of the muscles and skeleton1 anatomists in examining the bones of extinct animals are accustomed to reverse the order of their inferences1 and infer from modifications of the skeleton what had been the characters of the soft and more vital structures4 ,on the presumed accuracy of this method of research rest many results of ,comparative ,anatomy4 ,but since the shapes of bones are determined by the muscles as well as by inheritance1 it is always to be remembered that a similar form of bone may obtain in different orders or classes of animals1 as the result of a similar function in a special region of the body4 ,such resemblances are familiar to anatomists4 ,hence much caution is required from the ,palontologist to distinguish between the characteristics of a group1 and the extent to which they may be modified by function4 ,this distinction is the first principle of classification4 ,but it is always difficult to estimate the importance of characters in fragments of bones or parts of skeletons1 and the difficulty is increased by the fact that if what appears to be but a functional modification should pervade all the species1 it becomes a characteristic of the group1 and its power of modifying the other organs in a peculiar way has to be considered4 ,thus for all practical purposes birds may be said to be characterized by wings1 which almost acquire the dignity of class characters from their influence on the respiratory function4 ,but in some birds it has been thought that no bone of the fore-limb was ever developed,v2 and the difference between such a phenomenon and the wing of a ,swift1 for example1 is one almost of infinity1 as compared with any other aspect that the anterior limb might have assumed4 ,therefore1 since a bird may part with its fore-limbs and yet remain a bird1 ,i infer that it might apply its fore-limbs to the ground1 become a quadruped1 and be a bird still4 ,and if in this process the other structures remained unchanged1 no one would regard the modification as more than an ordinal one4 ,but should the vertebr change also1 or the pelvis1 or the covering of the integument1 or the jaws become toothed1 then1 although the heart and lungs and brain of the imaginary animal retained their class characters1 the functional differences being more than those of an order would constitute it a sub-class4 ,footnote ,v3 ,according to ,prof4 ,owen1 in ,dinornis4 ,in the same way it is conceivable that serpents may have existed with well-developed limbs1 and if they retained their other characters the limbed forms would constitute a sub-order of serpents2 but if to these characters they added a closed palate united to the cranium1 they would constitute a new order of reptiles4 ,a chelonian might be entirely deprived of its bony covering1 and it would still be a chelonian1 differing only as a separate family4 ,so that structures which to the eye appear fundamental may be lost without affecting an animal's systematic position1 just as animals while resembling each other in form may possess dissimilar organization4 ,even with the living or typical ,reptilia1 naturalists are divided as to the number of ordinal groups into which they naturally fall4 ,it is however generally agreed that the ,amphibia or ,dipnoa of ,fitzinger1 have no near affinity with the true reptiles4 ,milne-,edwards1 ,van der ,hoeven and ,agassiz make the remainder into three orders1 as did ,cuvier3 ,chelonia1 ,sauria1 ,ophidia4 ,stannius1 ,gray1 ,owen and ,huxley1 on the other hand1 by dividing the ,saurians make four orders1 to which ,dr ,gnther by his description of ,sphenodon has given evidence of a fifth3 ,crocodilia1 ,chelonia1 ,sauria1 ,ophidia1 7,rhynchocephalia47 ,de ,blainville in a remarkable classification 7#ahaf71 made three orders1 ,chelonians1 ,emydosaurians crocodiles1 and ,saurophidians2 the latter group being subdivided into ,saurians and ,ophidians4 ,in his ,handbuch der ,anatomie der ,wirbelthiere ,stannius unites the ,crocodilia and ,chelonia into a group called ,monimostylica2 while of the ,sauria and ,ophidia he makes another group called ,streptostylica4 ,similar groups were made by ,dr ,gray1 and named ,cataphracta and ,squamata4 ,they are identical with the cuirassed and scaly reptiles of ,dumeril and ,bibron4 ,the ,astylica 7,sphenodon7 have no penis4 ,the ,streptostylica have a double penis1 lungs simplified at the distal end into a mere air-bladder1 brains with a moderately elongated cerebrum1 the palate mesially open1 scales1 leathery shell to the egg cut through by a tooth on the premaxillary bone4 ,the ,monimostylica have a single penis1 lungs well subdivided1 ventricle of heart partly turtles or entirely divided crocodiles1 brains having the cerebrum broad or high1 a closed palate1 scutes1 a calcareous shell to the egg4 ,thus the chief differences between ,turtles and ,crocodiles on the one hand1 and ,lizards and ,serpents on the other hand1 are not so much in the fundamental vital structures1 though these undergo changes even in the families1 as in the different ways in which the muscles and skeleton are modified4 ,the typical lizards diverge widely from the crocodiles1 and in those osteological features which admit of comparison they make at least as near an approach to the ,chelonians4 ,but leaving the limbs and pectoral and pelvic girdles out of consideration1 lizards find their natural place side by side with the serpents4 ,attempts have been made by ,palontologists to incorporate the new ordinal groups which they have been compelled to create for some fossils1 along with the true ,reptilia2 but such a proceeding destroys the value of the term ,reptile as a measure of a known organization4 ,in the absence of knowledge of the brains of ,dinosaurs1 ,ichthyosaurs1 and ,dicynodonts1 their union with the ,reptilia can only have a stagnating effect on ,palontology1 for there is no proof that they are ,reptiles in the same sense as are ,crocodiles or ,chameleons3 while their bones being used as standards of ,reptilian structure in comparisons1 they adjudicate the place in nature of other animals by an authority which has never been established4 ,before any inference can be drawn from the forms of bones in extinct animals1 their relations to vital structures and to way of life must be known in animals which still live4 ,this may give some clue both to their functional significance and to the extent to which they are inherited and not directly attributable to function4 ,but an idea of the morphological value of the bones of living animals is only gained by comparing them with the remains of their extinct allies1 tracing the now imitative structure back to its origin in a function which has ceased to be displayed4 ,professor ,owen in his ,comparative ,anatomy of the ,vertebrates 7#ahff7 admits nine orders of ,reptiles1 five of which are extinct1 some of the extinct orders being supposed to rank lower1 while others are higher than the living types4 ,they are arranged in this way1 99 ,pterosauria1 99 ,dinosauria1 ,crocodilia1 ,ophidia1 ,lacertilia1 ,chelonia 99 ,anomodontia1 99 ,sauropterygia1 99 ,ichthyopterygia4 99 ,extinct4 ,prof4 ,owen1 ,comp4 ,anat4 ,vol4 ,i4 p4 #g-i1 defines his sub-classes4 ,at p4 #ae1 in the details of the orders1 he puts ,ichthyosaurus in the #eth sub-class ,monopnoa4 ,but at p4 #ej1 treating of the vertebral column of ,ichthyosaurus1 it is written of as an extinct order of ,dipnoal reptiles4 ,the ,dipnoa then would include ,ichthyosauria1 ,batrachia1 ,labyrinthodontia1 ,ganocephala4 ,but ,ichthyosaurus obviously belongs to ,haeckel's group ,monocondylia4 ,in what characters the ,ichthyosaurs are lower than living reptiles ,i have been unable to discover4 ,the palate may be better compared with a struthious bird than with a reptile2 and the pectoral girdle may be better compared with the ,ornithodelphia than with a reptile1 while all the trunk-vertebr have ribs such as are associated in living animals with a four-celled heart4 ,but if it is a lower animal type than living reptilia1 the student will ask1 how much lower8 does it descend to the ,dipnoa1 and prove to be the missing link between the ,amphibia and ,reptilia8 and wherein is the evidence8 ,or does it not with ,dicynodonts and ,dinosaurs rather form an outlying class uniting the reptiles with the mammals4 ,in the same way1 when ,pterosauria and ,dinosauria are placed above living reptiles1 we are compelled to ask how much are they above1 or what are the characters which bind them to the ,reptilia at all8 ,no satisfactory evidence has ever been adduced to show that the ,dinosauria are ,reptiles4 ,and of the claim of the ,pterodactyles to such a position1 the facts detailed and now summarised will be the best evidence4 ,the highest structure shown in these remains is the brain-case4 ,the cavity for the brain is in every respect like that in the skull of a bird4 ,it resembles brains of a high type in having the cerebral lobes convex in front2 since1 in the lower mammals1 there is a resemblance to reptiles in the conical form of the cerebrum2 while the brains even of some of the placental mammals are not well distinguished from those of reptiles4 ,although the brain of the ,ornithorhynchus is entirely mammalian1 it is more like the brain of a reptile than is the brain of the ,pterodactyle4 ,no evidence of affinities could be adduced which would outweigh this4 ,taken by itself it would lead us to anticipate for the ,pterodactyle those vital structures which birds have in common4 ,next in importance to the brain are the pneumatic perforations in the bones4 ,they are seen in the lower jaw1 the quadrate bone1 in the whole of the vertebral column1 in all the bones of the fore-limb1 excepting one or two fragments1 in the scapula and coracoid1 in the os innominatum1 in the femur and in the tibia4 ,in such of the bones as can be compared1 the pneumatic perforation is usually situated in ,birds as it is in ,pterodactyles4 ,in ,birds the bones are filled with air through these perforations1 and as a principle the greater the motion of the animal1 the greater is the number of bones filled with air4 ,this air is received from the air-sacs which receive it from the lungs1 and return it through the lungs again4 ,there is thus in birds a sort of supplemental lung-system1 which circulates air through the body4 ,nothing of the kind exists in any other class of animals4 ,the respiratory system in birds is more perfect and complex than in the other vertebrata1 and1 as a result1 the temperature of the blood on the whole is hotter4 ,in ,pterodactyles the reticulate character of the perforations proves that they were pneumatic1 and supplied the bones with air4 ,the fact that the bones were supplied with air1 necessitates an elaborate system of air-sacs to furnish the supply4 ,and the existence of these air-sacs speaks incontestably to bronchial tubes opening on the surface of the lungs to supply them1 and to the existence of lungs essentially like those of birds4 ,the outward and backward direction of the coracoid bones may indicate that the lungs were larger than in a bird4 ,the circulation of air through the bird's body has relation to rapid motion through the atmosphere1 which necessarily produces more rapid respiration than would comparative quiescence4 ,the same inference must be applied to the ,pterodactyles4 ,but rapid respiration only means more rapid oxidation of the blood1 and conversion of the purple cruorine into scarlet cruorine1--that is1 the conversion of venous blood into arterial blood4 ,and if venous blood is converted into arterial blood by a lung-apparatus like that of a bird1 and with a rapidity like that in a bird1 there must be a circulation of the blood as rapid as in birds4 ,such a circulation is only maintained by a heart with two auricles and two ventricles4 ,therefore ,pterodactyles had the heart like that of birds and mammals4 ,now1 since the temperature of the blood is chiefly dependent on respiration and circulation1 and ,pterodactyles had respiratory and circulatory organs which in living animals produce hot blood1 it results that they were hot-blooded animals4 ,thus the heart and lungs are exactly such as would have been inferred from the brain1 and1 like it1 they are avian4 ,and so important are these vital structures all taken together1 that the inference from them upon an animal's affinities would overbear all other evidence that could be adduced except reproduction2 for they demonstrate the plan on which an animal was built1 and are the motor power which enabled it to use its skeleton in a way that stamped upon it a peculiar form4 ,in the head such structures as are preserved conform with slight variations to the avian plan4 ,other ,ornithosaurians show in the parts which are not preserved in ,cambridge specimens some characters which are not avian2 they are in part as much mammalian as reptilian1 and in a few points entirely reptilian4 ,but it might be misleading to take ,german specimens into consideration in forming an estimate of the ,pterodactyles of the ,cambridge ,greensand1 which were probably a different ordinal group1 and may have had material differences in structure4 ,the vertebral column as a whole is distinctive4 ,the neck and sacrum are mammalian1 and the tail reptilian4 ,the proclous vertebr are characteristic of reptiles1 but in some animals1 as ,chelonians1 they vary in different regions of the body2 and among amphibians the character is inconstant in genera nearly allied4 ,the hind-limb is in part mammalian and in part avian2 if there be any reptilian characters in the foot1 they are not less mammalian4 ,the os innominatum is avian and mammalian4 ,the pectoral girdle is avian4 ,the fore-limb is avian and mammalian4 ,the wing-finger is distinctive1 though formed on the avian plan4 ,thus1 if with an avian basis some parts of the skeleton present points of agreement with reptiles1 in other points there are resemblances with mammals not less characteristic4 ,these phnomena do not show that in so far the animal is a mammal or a reptile1 but only that mammals1 ornithosaurians1 and reptiles have had a common origin1 and that while they have been differentiated so as to form separate classes they have severally retained characters which formerly were united in one class4 ,it is a skeleton intermediate between reptiles and mammals1 and well distinguished by mammalian1 reptilian1 and peculiar characters1 from birds4 ,it therefore forms a parallel group with birds1 displaying the ornithic organization in a differently modified skeleton4 ,yet it differs more from existing birds than they differ among themselves1 for the discrepancies are in points of structure in which all existing birds agree3 they are in having teeth1 in the proclous centrum1 in the separate condition of the carpal and metacarpal 7and of the tarsal and metatarsal7 bones2 in having more than two bones in the fore-arm1 in the sacrum formed of few vertebr1 in the expanded pubic 7and prepubic7 bones1 in a long neck to the femur1 and in the modification of the wing by the great development of the phalanges of one finger4 ,i therefore regard the ,pterodactyles as forming a group of equal value with birds1 for which group the name ,ornithosauria is here used4 ,it cannot form a separate class1 because they have a fundamental organization in common2 and it cannot form an order of birds1 because its differences from birds are greater than those of an order4 ,it is a group which itself probably includes several orders1 and must constitute a sub-class1 which finds its place in nature side by side with birds and between mammals and reptiles1 thus3-- ,mammalia4 ,ornithosauria4 ,aves ,reptilia4 _/ ,restoration4 ,of the form and size,w of the animals from the ,cambridge ,greensand1 an idea will best be given by a few measurements4 ,footnote ,w3 ,there are ,ornithosaurians hereafter to be described compared with which the largest at present known will seem diminutive4 ,a vertebra of one such1 from the ,wealden1 is contained in the ,british ,museum 7numbered #bhfcb74 ,the centrum alone is between #i and #aj inches long and #h inches deep4 ,it is named ,streptospondylus1 but constitutes a new group of ,ornithosaurians4 ,nothing so gigantic exists in the ,woodwardian ,museum4 ,another vertebra of the same or an allied genus has been figured by ,prof4 ,owen as the tympanic bone of 8,iguonodon 7,fossil ,reptilia of the ,wealden1 ,part #b1 pl4 #aj74 ,in the species ,ornithocheirus nasutus 7,seeley71 ,j4c4#b4aa4a3 ,the premaxillary extends for #f inches without reaching the nares4 ,the lower jaw is #c_/d of an inch deep at the articulation4 ,the four cervical vertebr are each #a-a_/b inch long4 ,the sternum measures #a-a_/b inch over the facets for the coracoids4 ,the humerus is #b-a_/af inches over the proximal end1 the radial crest not being preserved4 ,the coracoid is #a-a_/d inch over the proximal end4 ,the scapula is about #c-a_/b inches long4 ,the proximal carpal 7imperfect7 is #a-e_/h inch wide4 ,the distal carpal is #a-a_/b inch wide4 ,the lateral carpal is #a-a_/d inch long4 ,the wing-metacarpal is #a-a_/d inch wide at the proximal end1 and #g_/h inch wide at the distal end4 ,the proximal end of the first phalange is about #a-e_/h inch wide4 ,the proximal end of the second phalange is less than an inch wide4 ,the claw-phalange 7imperfect7 is about #a-a_/d inch long4 ,the femur is #d inches long4 ,putting the animal together1 the bones give this size 3 ,head #a ft4 #c in4 long4 ,neck #i 7,back and sacrum7 8 #h 7,tail7 8 #aj ,with the hypothetical parts1 this would give a length of about #c ft4 #f in4 from the tip of the snout to the tip of the tail4 ,then ,humerus #h in4 long4 7,fore-arm7 8#a ft4 #j ,carpus #b ,metacarpus #aj ,which1 if the fore-limbs were kept together as in ordinary quadrupeds1 would give a height to the body of about #b ft4 #f in41 but as the limbs probably spread in walking as among the bats1 the hind-limb would give a better idea of the height of the animal4 7,flesh1 sacrum1 os innominatum74 #b in4 ,femur #d 7,tibia7 #f 7,metatarsus1 c47 #a ,which would give a height of about #ac inches2 and1 standing in the position of a bird1 the height to the crown of the head would be about #b feet4 ,the majority of the ,ornithosaurians of the ,cambridge ,greensand are of this size4 ,the spread of the wings1 if there were #d phalanges1 would be ,body #aj in4 wide4 ,two arms #e ft4 #b ,two wing fingers #g #j ,giving a total expanse of about #ac feet4 ,but1 from the indications of the wing-finger1 ,i should incline to think an expanse of #aj feet a truer estimate4 ,the largest species attained to twice this size1 and the smallest was a fourth as large4 ,another memoir will present descriptions and restorations of the ,greensand species4 ,habits4 ,the varying organization of different ,ornithosaurians probably depends on the different habits of the tribes4 ,that they could all fly is probable from the enormous radial crest to the humerus and the great development of the wing-bones1 to which a wing-membrane was stretched1 comparable to that of a ,bat in texture1 but more comparable to a ,bird in its extent4 ,the groups with long hind-legs probably had the membrane limited to the bones of the arm1 while in the species with small hind-legs it may have attained even as great a development as in ,bats1 though there is no reason for suspecting that it extended to the tail4 ,a ,pterodactyle cannot be supposed to have hung itself up by the hind-legs as does a ,bat1 because the hind-claws appear invariably to be directed forward4 ,a ,bat walks upon four legs with considerable elegance and speed2 the wing is folded in1 close to the side1 so as to be scarcely noticed2 and the outer claw is free to climb with4 ,there can be little doubt but that ,pterodactyles walked in a similar way4 ,the thickened mammilate knob at the proximal end of the first phalange is well calculated for contact with the ground4 ,and if it were supposed that the large wing-metacarpal bone were only used to support the wing1 and the small metacarpals only used to support the claws by which the creature has sometimes been pictured suspending itself1 it would be difficult to believe that the forces of pressure and tension in flying so exactly corresponded to the forces manifested in suspension as to cause the large and the small metacarpals invariably to attain the same length4 ,a correspondence of this kind may be presumed to indicate a correspondence in function2 and since the animal did not fly by means of its claws1 the inference is that it walked by means of the metacarpal bones4 ,in no other way could the bones have been used equally4 ,the avian ilium would suggest a probability that they also at times stood erect like birds1 from which position they could with more ease expand their wings2 nor is such an idea opposed by the resemblance of some bones of the hind-limb to what obtains in birds1 and of the neck of the femur to what is seen in mammals of great power in the hind-legs4 ,that they lived exclusively upon land and in air is improbable1 considering the circumstances under which their remains are found4 ,it is likely that they haunted the sea-shores1 and1 while sometimes rowing themselves over the water with their powerful wings1 used the wing-membrane as does the ,bat to enclose their prey and bring it to the mouth4 ,but the superior development of the pneumatic foramina suggest that their activity was greater than in ordinary sea-birds4 ,the large ,cambridge ,pterodactyles probably pursued a more substantial prey than dragon-flies4 ,their teeth are well suited for fish1 but probably fowl and small mammal1 and even fruits1 made a variety in their food4 ,as the lord of the cliff1 it may be presumed to have taken toll of all animals that could be conquered with tooth and nail4 ,from its brain it might be regarded as an intelligent animal4 ,the jaws present indications of having been sheathed with a horny covering1 and some of the species show a rugose anterior termination of the snout suggestive of fleshy lips like those of the ,bat1 and which may have been similarly used to stretch and clean the wing-membrane4 ,the high temperature1 coupled with the sub-aerial life1 are opposed to the idea of the animal having been naked4 ,the undisturbed condition of the skeleton and some points of structure are opposed to the idea of their having had large feathers4 ,the absence of such remains does not favour the hypothesis of their having been covered with scales1 though in the legs of birds a scaly covering is met with4 ,i should anticipate for them a filamentous downy feather1 or hair1 like a ,bat's4 ,the ,bat combs its hair with its claws1 and the ,ornithosaurians may have used their claws in a similar way4 ,they cannot be supposed to have been gregarious1 from the large number of species relatively to specimens4 ,the reproduction may have been much the same as in birds2 and the young were probably reared with affectionate care,x4 ,footnote ,x3 ,mr ,carruthers has shown me crushed ,turtle-like eggs from the ,stonesfield slate1 which in the external pitting of the egg-shell are not so different from some birds as to preclude a suspicion that they might possibly be ,ornithosaurian4 99 99 99 99 99 ,the following notes indicate structures in perfect specimens from the ,lithographic slate which supplement the fragmentary remains from the ,cambridge ,greensand,y4 ,footnote ,y3 ,the ,german animals form different family groups4 ,and it cannot be inferred that the structures seen in them pertained to ,cambridge specimens4 ,in the head1 ,cambridge specimens show no trace of the parts which are between the brain-cavity and the fore-part of the jaw4 ,the form and condition of the orbits1 nares1 and of the space between them1 vary in ,german specimens4 ,some ,birds and certain ,ruminants1 such as deer1 the giraffe1 c41 have an interspace between the orbits and nares corresponding to that in some ,pterodactyles1 but no such perforation is found in living reptiles4 ,in mammals it appears to be surrounded by the frontal1 nasal1 lachrymal1 and often by the maxillary bone4 ,in birds the bones appear to be the lachrymal1 nasal1 maxillary and premaxillary1 as is the case with ,pterodactyles1 except that the nasal bones would seem sometimes to be excluded4 ,the chief peculiarity of the ,pterodactyle skull in this region is made by the malar bone 7and1 according to some authors1 the maxillary also7 sending up a process to meet the lachrymal4 ,this is not seen in birds1 but is characteristic of many mammals and reptiles4 ,the premaxillary bone is single1 as in birds and ,iguana2 but it appears to attain as great a development as in birds1 and to occupy the portion of the jaw which among reptiles and mammals is made by the maxillary bone4 ,owing to the great development of the premaxillary bones1 the exterior nares are placed far back toward the middle of the skull as in birds1 and not near the tip of the snout as in living reptiles and most mammals4 ,the orbits in ,pterodactyles are surrounded with bone1 as is commonly the case with mammals and reptiles4 ,among birds a complete orbit is seen among the parrots1 in which it is completed below by a prolongation of the outer posterior corner of the frontal1 which would correspond to the post-frontal bone1 and by the lachrymal bone4 ,thus the malar bone1 which in most mammals and reptiles forms an important part of the lower margin of the orbit1 is in birds entirely excluded4 ,in ,pterodactyles the malar bone is placed between the lachrymal and the post-frontal process of the frontal bone4 ,the quadrate bone in ,german ,pterodactyles1 instead of being vertical as in birds1 stretches obliquely forward below the malar bone1 so that the articulation for the lower jaw is brought forward to be under the middle of the orbit4 ,in ,pterodactylus ,kochi and in other species there appears to be a process1 or small separate triradiate bone1 comparable to a diminished lacertian post-frontal1 and homologous with the post-frontal process of the parrots4 ,its upper branch meets the frontal4 ,in some genera the front appears to meet the malar4 ,the lower branch goes to the front of the quadrate bone1 and the backward branch goes to the squamosal immediately above the articulation for the quadrate bone4 ,thus it is a post-frontal bone resembling that of the ,iguana1 but modified and adapted to a cranium like that of a bird4 ,its form and size in the different genera are very variable4 ,no similar development is seen among mammals1 where the post-frontals have probably ceased to exist4 ,it is a carious point of resemblance1 but from the other resemblances to ,iguana being so few it is robbed of much of its force as a mark of affinity1 and becomes of interest chiefly as an evidence of independent persistence of structures4 ,the pterygoid and palatine bones approximate to those of bird and lizard in ,pterodactylus crassirostris4 ,and the bones in ,pterodactylus suevicus1 which ,quenstedt names vomera1 should rather have been named palatines4 ,there is a bone in ,goldfuss' specimen1 between the malar and palatine1 which he identifies with the transverse bone1 but it is not seen in any other specimen4 ,the ribs sometimes appear to articulate by single heads1 but in ,p4 crassirostris they are apparently articulated as in the ,crocodile4 ,some species show abdominal ribs like those of some reptiles2 but the segments of the mammalian sternum and abdominal ribs are to be regarded as homologous structures4 ,the vertebr offer considerable variety in size and shape1 but the greatest variation in number is seen in the tail1 which is sometimes stiff and long1 and sometimes short4 ,the pelvic bones show a large amount of variation in different genera1 often appearing to be crocodilian1 sometimes lacertian1 sometimes mammalian4 ,in the aim the humerus is variable in the length of the radial crest1 and the metacarpus also varies in length4 ,when the external similarity of the skeletons of birds is borne in mind1 it is impossible1 without disregard of classification altogether1 to place animals differing so widely as do the different ,ornithosaurians in the few genera in which they are at present packed4 ,,classification4 ,the orders of ,ornithosaurians may be established hereafter4 ,under the name ,pterosauria1 ,prof4 ,owen founded one order which has for its type the ,pterodactylus longirostris4 ,von ,meyer proposed to separate this order into two groups1 one with two phalanges in the wing-finger1 of which ,ornithopterus is the only example1 forming his ,diathri2 while the other group1 ,tetrathri1 or those with four fingers1 comprised all other ,pterosaurians4 ,the ,tetrathri he again subdivided1 following out1 as he states1 the suggestion of ,munster and ,goldfuss1 into ,dentirostres or such ,pterodactyles as have the jaws furnished with teeth to their anterior termination2 and the ,subulirostres1 or such as want teeth at the extremities of the jaws4 ,to the former group he left the name ,pterodactylus1 and to the latter was given the name ,rhamphorhynchus4 ,von ,meyer says that he might easily have made a few more species1 as will be evident to those who inspect his plates1 but he believes that the students of living animals go too far in their tendency to subdivide3 a fancy that1 if indulged in by ,palontologists1 would have the effect of restoring the old ,linnan groups2 and a complaint which1 although often heard1 has usually come from those who do not readily discern and appraise classificational characters4 ,in ,palontology genera are sometimes co-extensive with orders1 while species often mean genera4 ,it may be wearisome to the collector to be lured on to follow the devious ways of a science1 but ,palontology1 the source whence the mysteries of existing nature must unravel their meaning1 is the handmaid of all nature's truths which have been buried in evolving the existing creation2 and a duty devolves upon ,palontologists to make the past an inseparable part of the present1 by applying to the two the same scientific method4 ,a year previous to the formation of ,owen's ,pterosauria1 ,bonaparte named the ,order ,ornithosaurii1 and divided it into a family--,pterodactyl1 and a sub-family ,pterodactylin4 ,fitzinger 7,systema ,reptilium1 #ahdc7 also used the same ordinal name1 and recognized three genera-- ,pachyrhamphus1 of which the type is ,pterodactylus crassirostris 7,gold474 ,pterodactylus1 with the type ,p4 longirostris 7,cuv474 ,and ,ornithocephalus1 with the type ,o4 brevirostris 7,smm474 ,these and other attempts at classification all endeavour to subdivide ,ornithosaurians by the head or by the tail4 ,other characters for primary divisions may be obtained from the pelvis4 ,in the majority of ,german ,pterodactyles the ilium extends for a long distance in front of the os pubis1 and only for a very short distance behind the large ischium2 and the small pubis from its anterior margin gives attachment to a large prepubic bone1 which resembles in form the os pubis of the ,crocodile,z1 and is unlike that of the ,monotreme4 ,these appear to include the long-legged animals with short tails1 at present called ,pterodactyles1 and form a well-marked family or order4 ,footnote ,z3 ,prof4 ,haughton1 from a study of the bones and muscles1 came to the conclusion that the pubic bones of ,crocodiles are the marsupial bones4 ,another kind of pelvis is that in which the ilium extends a short way in front of the acetabulum1 in which the pelvic bones inclose a much larger space4 ,these include the ,cambridge ,ornithosaurians1 the ,rhamphorhynchus1 and the ,dimorphodon1 and form another well-marked family4 ,these long-tailed ,pterodactyles subdivide into three sub-families--,rhamphorhynch1 ,dimorphodont1 and ,ornithocheir4 ,the four families may then be defined thus3 ,pterodactyl4 ,tail short4 ,hind-legs long4 ,ilium narrow1 extending far anterior to the acetabulum2 ischium extending behind the acetabulum4 ,epipubic bones ficiform4 ,head with the middle holes large1 often confluent with the exterior nares4 ,jaws toothed to the anterior extremity4 ,rhamphorhynch4 ,tail long and stiff4 ,hind-legs short4 ,pubis and ischium small1 oblique to ilium1 which extends less far anteriorly than in ,pterodactyl4 ,epipubic bones narrow and bent2 they unite mesially and form a three-sided bow in front of the pelvis4 ,head with the middle holes and nares both small4 ,jaws never toothed to the anterior extremity4 ,dimorphodont4 ,tail long and stiff4 ,hind-legs long4 ,pubis and ischium forming an expanded sheet of bone at right angles with the narrow ilium1 which extends as far behind as in front prepubic bones triangular 787 attached by the apex of the triangle4 ,head with the nares and middle holes large4 ,quadrate bone large4 ,jaws with large teeth at the extremities1 and small teeth behind4 ,no sacrum4 ,ornithocheir4 ,tail long and flexible4 ,hind-legs short4 ,pelvis as in ,dimorphodont4 ,epipubic bones with a small attachment1 form unknown4 ,head with the quadrate bone small4 ,sacrum of not fewer than three vertebr4 ,in the ,pterodactyl the genera are-- ,pterodactylus 7,cuvier71 in which the exterior nares are at the sides of the face1 very large1 and only partially1 if at all1 separated by bone from the small middle hole of the head4 ,the head is elongated4 ,the neck is long4 ,among others1 it includes the species ,p4 longirostris1 ,p4 ,kochi1 ,p4 scolopaciceps1 ,p4 longicollum4 ,ornithocephalus 7,smmerring71 in which the anterior nares are entirely separated from the middle holes of the head1 both being small1 and the latter exceedingly small4 ,the head is short ,the neck is short4 ,the large ischium appears to be excluded from the acetabulum1 and the ilium appears to extend less far forward than in ,pterodactylus,,aa4 ,footnote ,,aa3 ,so far as can be judged from figures1 it appears to have but three bones in the wing-finger3 what ,cuvier regarded as a terminal and fourth joint1 the bone n1 ,pl4 ,,xxiii4 fig4 #g1 ,oss4 ,foss41 appearing to me to be the fibula of the tibia marked e4 s in the same figure would be the terminal phalange1 and r the first phalange1 as may be proved by measuring them with those of the other hand1 so that a phalange is missing from between them4 ,both the terminal phalanges appear to be hooked at the termination4 ,goldfuss figures the phalanges so as to make the bone which appears to be fibula in ,smmerring and ,cuvier look like a fourth phalange4 ,pachyrhamphus 7,fitzinger74 ,the nares are entirely separated from the middle holes of the head2 both are large4 ,the head is thick and massive4 ,the prepubic bones meet mesially4 ,no evidence of the number of phalanges in the wing-finger4 ,the quadrate bone is massive1 but has small attachment to the skull4 ,two sacral vertebr4 ,wing-metacarpal very short4 ,the type is ,p4 crassirostris 7,goldfuss74 ,cycnorhamphus 7,seeley74 ,nares very small1 looking upward from a swan-like beak4 ,the middle hole of the skull very large and elongated and lateral4 ,neck long4 ,wing-metacarpal long4 ,four joints in the wing-finger4 ,ilium widening in front4 ,epipubic bones meeting mesially4 ,the type is ,pterodactylus suevicus 7,quenstedt74 ,in the ,rhamphorhynch at present there appears to be but one genus known3 ,rhamphorhynchus 7von ,meyer74 ,the nares and middle holes are both small1 ovate1 of nearly equal size1 and close together at the side of the head in front of the orbit4 ,in the ,dimorphodont the only genus is ,dimorphodon 7,owen74 ,it has the nares enormously large4 ,the middle holes are also large4 ,in the ,ornithocheir the genus is ,ornithocheirus 7,seeley71 in which teeth are prolonged anterior to the muzzle1 and the palate has a longitudinal ridge4 ,with the osteological illustrations of the ,ornithosauria are arranged some premaxillary bones1 which show varieties of form of the snout4 ,these variations of shape serve easily to indicate different species4 ,and the following memoranda from those specimens and other specimens in the drawers form a synopsis of the species of the ,cambridge genera1 which may hereafter be fully elucidated from the copious materials in the series of associated remains4 ,i4 ,ornithocheirus ,sedgwicki 7,owen74 ,case4 ,comp4 ,tablet4 ,specimen4 ,j c #ac #b ,the fragment is #b-g_/hths inches long1 with the elliptical teeth opposite to each other1 #f on a side on the palate1 and one pair in front4 ,the first three teeth are large2 behind these the teeth are about half the size4 ,the palate is gently convex1 with a faint median ridge1 and measures from side to side over the fourth and subsequent sockets #ac_/afths of an inch4 ,the height of the jaw at the fourth socket #a-a_/d inch4 ,the sides converge to an acute rounded rostral keel4 ,the jaws appear to have been long4 ,the anterior termination is vascular4 ,the rostral keel figured by ,owen ,pl4 ,i1 fig4 #a d1 in the #ast ,supt4 ,cret4 ,reptiles1 is not square as represented there1 but rounded2 the sides converge more acutely1 and at the ridge the keel is not half so wide as the figure makes it4 ,the enormous size of the third tooth-socket is partly due to the cracked bone having absorbed more phosphate of lime than it could hold1 and extended the cracks to fissures4 ,the type specimen shows that there was another pair of sockets in front of1 but quite close to1 those which appear to terminate the lower jaw4 ,,ii4 ,ornithocheirus ,cuvieri 7,bowerbank74 ,case4 ,comp4 ,tablet4 ,specimen4 ,j c #ae #a-c ,a portion of a premaxillary bone fractured at both ends1 and two inches long1 corresponds with ,dr ,bowerbank's fossil figured ,pl4 ,,xxvii4 fig4 #a1 #c1 #d1 in the ,palontographical volume for #ahea4 ,the palate is just as wide2 the median ridge1 the same2 the teeth the same in shape and as far apart4 ,the jaw is of the same depth1 but does not deepen so rapidly behind4 ,the only other difference is that the sockets of the teeth are less prominent on the sides1 and appear to look more directly down4 ,the ridge in which the converging sides meet is well rounded in a dentary bone which may have pertained to this species4 ,in the space of two inches and a quarter are #e teeth1 the posterior four extending over two inches1 the other pair being in front4 ,the palatal surface is #c_/d of an inch broad behind the third tooth1 and rather more than #e_/h of an inch broad behind the fourth tooth4 ,the length of the #dth or of the #eth sockets is two-thirds that of the second or third4 ,in front of the #eth tooth1 the jaw is an inch deep1 and it tapers in a curve to the anterior end4 ,the teeth behind the third have interspaces greater than the length of the sockets2 that between the #dth and #eth being #c_/h of an inch1 while the socket only measures a quarter of an inch long4 ,behind the #bnd socket commences the palatal groove1 broad in fronts but narrowing behind2 and its sides instead of diverging as in the type1 are concave so as to form a channel like a straightened ,siliquaria shell4 ,the halves of the palate bevel off so as to make a right angle with each other1 and greater angles with the flat sides4 ,,iii4 ,ornithocheirus machrorhynchus 7,seeley74 ,case4 ,comp4 ,tablet4 ,specimen4 ,j c#f #ce #a ,dentary bone4 ,broken at both ends1 and wanting all its teeth1 this interesting fossil shows the suture where its whole length rests on the angular bone which almost reached to the termination of the beak1 quite unlike what is seen in any ,german ,pterodactyle4 ,it is a narrow mandible1 less than three quarters of an inch wide1 with the alveolar margins parallel4 ,the palatal surface #a-a_/b inch long1 is divided into #c equal strips2 the middle one being a deep glossal groove1 slightly narrowing in front1 and deepening behind1 made by two inclined flat surfaces4 ,the lateral strips are horizontal behind1 and in front slope a little outward4 ,the tooth-sockets are oval1 directed outward1 and as long as the interspaces1 though these seem to get longer behind4 ,in an inch and a quarter there are four teeth4 ,below the teeth1 the sides of the jaw are compressed3 though nearly parallel at the hinder fracture1 the flattened surfaces approximate in front till they meet in a sharp keel1 which appears to make an acute angle of about #de with the palate2 and below1 where the jaw is an inch deep extends for half an inch in front of the suture with the angular bone3 this suture is straight and irregularly concave1 and in an inch and a quarter approximates to within #e_/hths of an inch of the palate4 ,,iv4 ,ornithocheirus tenuirostris 7,seeley74 ,case4 ,comp4 ,tablet4 ,specimen4 ,j c#b #ab #a ,middle part of a premaxillary bone fractured behind and in front1 slightly distorted by compression2 it is #b-a_/hth inches long1 and nearly resembles ,o4 compressirostris 7,owen74 ,the palate is about #a_/b an inch wide in front1 and #e_/hths of an inch wide behind2 it is compressed mesially into a strong angular keel1 between which and the teeth there is a shallow groove on each side4 ,the groove dies away behind1 and the converging parts of the keel occupy the whole space between the teeth4 ,the teeth-sockets are small1 elliptical1 not opposite to each other1 and placed along a distinct flattened tooth area1 which looks downward and outward and separates the palate from the side of the jaw4 ,the first pair of sockets preserved are almost #c_/afths of an inch long and #a_/afth of an inch wide4 ,the interspace between that tooth and the next tooth behind is #g_/af of an inch4 ,separated by similar interspaces1 behind these on one side are two sockets1 and on the other side one socket4 ,the sides are flattened in front1 and convex behind1 7making the section of the jaw lanceolate72 they are compressed and round into a narrow rostral keel4 ,the height from the palatal ridge to the rostral keel in front is #aa_/afths of an inch2 behind it is fractured1 but the height was probably #ad_/afths of an inch4 ,the palatal keel1 distance of the teeth1 and proportions of the jaw1 distinguish it from ,o4 compressirostris 7,owen74 ,v4 ,ornithocheirus ,oweni 7,seeley74 ,case4 ,comp4 ,tablet4 ,j c #bj ,the small piece of premaxillary on which this species is founded indicates a small animal1 and nearly resembles the jaw of ,o4 microdon4 ,it is scarcely an inch long2 nearly #i_/afths inch high behind1 and nearly #g_/afths of an inch high in front1 so that it tapers very rapidly1 and could scarcely have been an inch longer in front4 ,the nose is well rounded1 but the sides are a little concave1 and become well pinched in in the middle1 behind1 showing the near approach as ,i think to the nostril4 ,the palate half an inch broad1 is divided into two concave channels by the strong and sharp median ridge1 which projects below the alveolar margins4 ,the dental margins are not rounded as in ,c4 microdon1 but flattened1 making more than a right angle with both the outer side-wall and palate4 ,the interspaces between the teeth are rough1 looking as though they had supported minute teeth4 ,the alveolar margin is a tenth of an inch wide2 along it are the perfectly circular sockets1 a sixteenth of an inch in diameter4 ,there are #c sockets between #e_/h of an inch1 so that they are separated by #c times their diameter4 ,the palate is obliquely impressed with blood-vessels running forward to the teeth from the median ridge4 ,the points in which this jaw differs from that of ,o4 microdon are that in this species the teeth are circular instead of being oval2 that the interspaces here are as long as in that species1 though this jaw is only two-thirds the width2 that instead of having a sharp keel on the upper surface1 this has a well rounded roof4 ,that though the jaw is scarcely higher than it is wide1 it shows strong furrows running up to the nares1 while in ,o4 microdon1 though the proportions are the same1 the sides are perfectly flat without trace of pinching in1 while the line of the nasal opening is indicated by a faint furrow running all along the jaw4 ,and lastly it differs in size1 which1 where the sutures are lost1 may be important in discriminating forms4 ,,vi4 ,ornithocheirus microdon 7,seeley74 ,case4 ,comp4 ,tablet4 ,specimen4 ,j c #bi #a-b ,premaxillary bone4 ,the fossil is nearly #a-c_/dths inch long1 and at the proximal end1 where it is less than #c_/dths of an inch high1 has flat sides1 which converge to form a keel which is depressed anteriorly and rounded so that where fractured in front the bone is #g_/afths of an inch deep4 ,the palatal surface contains two wide concave channels1 between which descends a sharp median ridge1 which behind becomes more prominent than the alveolar border4 ,the palate is #e_/hths of an inch wide4 ,the alveolar margins are compressed and rounded4 ,the small tooth-sockets are oval1 and four are contained in #a-a_/hth inch2 they look downward4 ,there is a small tip of a jaw associated with this fossil1 which is so like that it might be part of the bone broken off before fossilization4 ,it corresponds in every way except that the teeth are closer4 ,in this terminal lanceolate fragment there are in #e_/hths of an inch four teeth4 ,the snout is terminated by two1 which are close together4 ,,vii4 ,ornithocheirus ,huxleyi 7,seeley74 ,the only specimen of this species yet known is the greater part of a dentary bone contained in the ,museum of the ,geological ,survey4 ,an inch and #a_/d long and #c_/dths of an inch wide1 it is less than half an inch deep3 the sides slowly converge towards the front1 and it appears to have had an obtusely lanceolate beak4 ,the under surface is convex1 too inflated for trace of a keel1 and tapers to the end of the beak1 which1 with the left alveolar margin is abraded4 ,the palatal surface is smooth at its front end1 but two diverging ridges soon arise and form the boundary of a posteriorly deepening mesial channel1 which is a quarter of an inch wide at the fracture4 ,these ridges too1 which are parallel with the compressed and rounded alveolar margins1 convert the lateral spaces into shallow channels4 ,the right side shows the sockets of #c small oval teeth separated by interspaces wider than teeth4 ,a tooth and two interspaces measure #g_/afths of an inch4 ,the only cretaceous ,pterodactyle which this at all resembles is ,o4 microdon1 but the palate is wider than in that species2 the sides converge towards each other more rapidly1 as though it belonged to a species with a shorter snout4 ,i am indebted to ,prof4 ,huxley for the opportunity of making a notice of this species4 ,,viii4 ,ornithocheirus oxyrhinus 7,seeley74 ,case4 ,comp4 ,tablet4 ,specimen4 ,j c#b #ac #a ,this well-marked species is a portion of a premaxillary bone #a-a_/d inch long1 fractured behind and in front4 ,the palate is half an inch wide2 its two halves are inclined to each other at a considerable angle1 and where they meet form a more prominent keel4 ,the tooth-sockets look more outward than downward1 are nearly circular1 separated by interspaces as long as the sockets2 three sockets and two interspaces measure one inch4 ,the jaw is about #e_/hths of an inch high in front1 and about #a_/afth of an inch higher behind4 ,the sides are flat and converge like the sides of a wedge to a sharp rostral keel4 ,,ix4 ,ornithocheirus xyphorhynchus 7,seeley74 ,i have seen but one example of this form4 ,it has lost much of the outer layer of bone1 and shows on the sides impressions like tooth-marks from an eater of ,pterodactyles4 ,a groove which has some appearance of being due to fracture traverses each side1 but the specimen is symmetrical1 and has its characters in no way changed by the accident4 ,it is a portion of a lower jaw of a long-beaked ,pterodactyle of the ,o4 ,sedgwicki type1 with parallel sides1 and the rounded basal ridge nearly parallel with the palate4 ,the fragment is two inches long1 showing four large and obliquely set sockets in ,if inch4 ,the tooth-sockets are on the outer two-thirds of the palate1 and looked forward1 upward1 and outward ,the interspaces each measure #e_/afths of an inch4 ,each half of the palatal surface which is #e_/af of an inch wide1 inclines to the other half at a right angle1 being parted by a narrow groove2 the diameter of the jaw is half an inch4 ,the depth of the jaw is #e_/hths of an inch in front1 and #c_/dths of an inch behind4 ,the sides are flat and approximate below to a sharp keel4 ,this species is one of many in the collection of ,w4 ,reed1 ,esq4 of ,york1 kindly placed in my hands for the elucidation of those in the ,woodwardian ,museum4 ,x4 ,ornithocheirus ,fittoni 7,owen74 ,case4 ,comp4 ,tablet4 ,specimen4 ,j c #ad #a1 #b ,the fragment is #a-a_/b inch long1 with two large elliptical tooth-sockets on each side of the flattened palate1 and one pair in front4 ,the third socket is separated from the fourth by a considerable interspace4 ,between the third sockets arises the median palatal ridge1 and from the inner margin of each socket a lateral ridge appears to be continued4 ,behind the third socket the jaw measures #aa_/afths of an inch from side to side1 and #aj_/afths of an inch high4 ,the sides converge and round convexly into each other4 ,the jaws appear to have been long2 ,it is only known by upper jaws4 ,the type specimen shows the socket of another tooth in front of the last one figured by ,prof4 ,owen4 ,it is directed outward at a greater angle1 and separated from the hinder one by a wall not #a_/afth of an inch thick1 and the teeth of this pair must have been parted from each other by a film equally thin4 ,there is no truncation of the snout as in ,o4 ,woodwardi4 ,another specimen shows some variations4 ,this fragment of a premaxillary bone is fractured through the third pair of tooth-sockets in front and through the seventh pair behind4 ,it is about #b-a_/hth inches long2 the palate is #aa_/afths of an inch wide behind the great tooth1 and maintains the same width4 ,the jaw is #aa_/afths of an inch high behind1 and #aj_/afths high in front4 ,the sides are gently convex1 and imperceptibly unite to form the well-rounded depressed mesial ridge of the beak4 ,from the front of the third to the back of the fifth socket measures #a-c_/hths inch4 ,the sockets are ovate1 rather smaller1 and closer together than in the type of ,o4 ,fittoni2 margins elevated4 ,the variations from types are so many1 and often so considerable1 as to suggest the idea that the fossil groups called species may in the living animals have often been genera4 ,in all the specimens the end of the palate is a little reflected upward4 ,,xi4 ,ornithocheirus dentatus 7,seeley74 ,case4 ,comp4 ,series4 ,specimen4 ,j c#a #i #a ,a fragment of premaxillary bone two inches long1 fractured behind the socket for the seventh tooth4 ,it most nearly resembles ,o4 ,sedgwicki and ,o4 ,cuvieri4 ,behind the second tooth the palate is #a_/b an inch wide2 behind the sixth socket it is #e_/hths of an inch wide2 the distance between these points is nearly #a-a_/b inch4 ,the palate is flattened1 with a sharp slight mesial keel and a wide concave channel on each side which dies away in front4 ,the first pair of teeth are in front of the snout1 rather small1 and look forward4 ,in this specimen the large third tooth is not developed on the left side4 ,the second and third sockets are large and close together2 the succeeding teeth are parted from each other by interspaces equal to their own diameter4 ,they are gibbously elliptical4 ,the sides of the jaw are gently convex from above downward2 they round into each other to form a narrow rostral keel4 ,behind the second socket the jaw is #a_/b an inch high2 behind the sixth it is nearly #g_/hths of an inch high4 ,the grooved and relatively wider palate1 and the relatively smaller teeth1 abundantly distinguish this species from ,o4 ,sedgwicki 7,owen74 ,the smaller1 more circular teeth1 placed closer together1 distinguish it from ,o4 ,cuvieri 7,bowerbank74 ,,xii4 ,ornithocheirus scaphorynchus 7,seeley74 ,case4 ,comp4 ,tablet4 ,j c #bb ,this fragment of premaxillary bone is #a-a_/b inch long4 ,the palate is #a_/b an inch wide behind1 and the jaw is rather more than #a_/b an inch high2 behind the second tooth it is nearly #e_/hths of an inch high4 ,the sides converge superiorly to form a well-rounded keel4 ,the palate is flattened1 with a slightly elevated blunt median keel4 ,there appears to be a pair of small teeth in front of the snout as usual1 and six on the palate1 with an indication of another at the posterior fracture4 ,the teeth are of moderate size and almost circular4 ,in the form of the bone it is readily distinguished from all the species enumerated4 ,,xiii4 ,ornithocheirus platystomus 7,seeley74 ,case4 ,comp4 ,series4 ,specimen4 ,j c#f #cb #a ,an ill-preserved fragment fractured in front and behind1 yet indicating a distinct species4 ,the palate is flat1 with the faintest median ridge1 and the sides are flat and round into a narrow rostral keel1 which in front approximates rapidly towards the palate4 ,the first pair of sockets are missing2 what appears to be the second pair are about #a_/hth of an inch long1 separated from the pair behind by an interspace of #a_/dth of an inch4 ,these are ovate and less than #a_/dth of an inch long1 and separated from the next pair by an interspace of not less than #a_/dth of an inch4 ,the height of the jaw over the first pair of sockets preserved is #i_/afths of an inch2 over the second pair it is #ad_/afths of an inch2 the space between these points is #i_/afths of an inch4 ,behind the second pair of teeth the palate is nearly #e_/hths of an inch wide4 ,the only species which it resembles is ,o4 brachyrhinus1 but differs from that in the flatter1 narrower palate1 which makes a greater angle with the rostral keel1 and in the smaller teeth1 which are separated by wider interspaces4 ,,xiv4 ,ornithocheirus nasutus 7,seeley74 ,case4 ,comp4 ,series4 ,specimen4 ,j c#b #aa #a ,a fragment of a premaxillary bone #f inches long4 ,it somewhat resembles ,o4 ,cuvieri in the aspect of the palate1 but the jaw is more elongated1 and expands from side to side at the anterior end4 ,the teeth are opposite to each other in front1 but become irregular after the sixth4 ,the palate measures behind the second pair of sockets #c_/dths of an inch1 behind the third pair it is a sixteenth of an inch wider1 behind the ninth pair half an inch1 and in the last two inches it begins to widen again4 ,a sharp keel arises behind the second pair of sockets and becomes more prominent to behind the tenth pair1 when the channel which accompanies it on each side seems to disappear4 ,the first pair of teeth1 which look forward1 is smaller than the second and third pairs2 they are closer together than those which follow4 ,the third sockets are #g_/hths of an inch from the tip of the snout4 ,then follow three smaller1 more circular teeth1 which are separated from each other by interspaces as long as the sockets4 ,the back of the sixth sockets are #b-a_/d inches from the tip of the snout4 ,then follow two larger more elliptical sockets2 after which the sockets become smaller and are separated by longer distances1 that between the #ajth and #aath pairs is nearly #c_/dths of an inch4 ,the height of the jaw behind the second pair of sockets is #e_/hths of an inch1 behind the sixth sockets #ae_/afths1 behind the tenth sockets #a-a_/d inch4 ,in front1 the nose has the aspect of being compressed from above downward1 and behind it is compressed from side to side4 ,the sides are flattened and round into a narrow rostral ridge which is depressed at the anterior end4 ,,xv4 ,ornithocheirus polyodon 7,seeley71 ,case4 ,comp4 ,tablet4 ,j c #ba ,this species is founded on the anterior end of a premaxillary bone2 in form not unlike ,o4 ,fittoni4 ,it is #e_/hths of an inch wide2 the lateral margins approximate very slowly1 and in front it appears to be truncated4 ,it is an inch and a quarter long1 and in that space were on each side six large round teeth1 almost as close together as they could be1 five on the palate and a pair in front4 ,the terminal two are no wider apart than the rest1 and point more forward4 ,a moderate1 sharp1 median ridge descends in the flattened palate1 making its lateral halves a little concave4 ,the front termination of the palate is slightly reflected upward4 ,the jaw1 which is #a_/b an inch deep behind1 tapers to its termination more rapidly than does ,o4 ,fittoni4 ,the flat sides similarly converge1 and form a well-rounded ridge1 which does not get blunter in front4 ,from their close approximation1 it results that the tooth-sockets are entirely above the palatal surface1 so that they are better seen from the side of the jaw than from the palate4 ,it is a clearly marked species1 as well distinguished from ,o4 ,fittoni by the closeness of its teeth1 as ,o4 ,sedgwicki is from ,o4 ,cuvieri4 ,,xvi4 ,ornithocheirus denticulatus 7,seeley74 ,case4 ,comp4 ,series4 ,tablet4 ,j c#e #bh #a ,this is a species which can only be confounded with ,o4 polyodon4 ,it is a fragment of premaxillary bone #a-c_/d inch long1 fractured through the seventh socket4 ,it differs from ,o4 polyodon in having larger teeth1 which are wider apart1 look more downward1 have a narrower palatal interspace between each pair1 and a rostral keel1 which is more compressed from side to side behind and from above downward in front1 and makes a greater angle with the palate4 ,the sockets are more uniform in size and closer together than usual1 the second and third pairs being but slightly larger than the others2 all are broadly elliptical4 ,the palatal keel becomes sharp and prominent behind the fourth sockets4 ,behind the second pair of sockets the height of the jaw is nearly #g_/afths of an inch1 behind the fourth sockets the height is #aj_/afths of an inch2 the distance between these points is about #aj_/afths of an inch4 ,,xvii4 ,ornithocheirus crassidens 7,seeley74 ,case4 ,comp4 ,series4 ,tablet4 ,j c#a #b #b ,this is a fragment of a 8premaxillary bone1 fractured behind through the socket for the fourth tooth4 ,it approximates to ,o4 colorhinus1 but differs chiefly in the nose not extending in front of the first pair of teeth2 in there not being any lunate area above the first pair of teeth2 in there being but one tooth in front1 which is relatively large2 in the socket for the fourth tooth being quite close to that for the third tooth1 and in the palatal sockets looking much more outward4 ,the nose also appears to be better rounded4 ,the fragment is #a-g_/h inch long4 ,the second and third sockets1 with their interspace1 measure #a-a_/h inch4 ,on the opposite side the first socket is intermediate in position between the first and second4 ,though not likely1 it is just possible that this might be the premaxillary bone of ,o4 eurygnathus4 ,,xviii4 ,ornithocheirus brachyrhinus 7,seeley74 ,case4 ,comp4 ,tablet4 ,j c #bd ,this fragment of a premaxillaiy bone is fractured behind the sockets for the third pair of teeth4 ,it is #a-a_/h inch long1 and shows one pair of small teeth in front and two pairs of large ovate teeth on the palate4 ,the first pair are divided from each other and from the second pair by films of bone2 and the second pair are separated from the third by rather more than half the length1 of the third socket4 ,behind the third pair of sockets the palate is #e_/hths of an inch wide2 it is flattened1 and has a blunt moderately elevated mesial ridge4 ,behind the second pair of sockets the jaw is #e_/hths of an inch high2 behind the third pair of sockets it is #c_/dths of an inch high2 the distance between the places of measurement is #a_/b an inch4 ,the sides are flat and converge to a rounded nose4 ,the jaw is rounded from side to side in front1 and the outline of the top of the nose rounds over the blunt termination of the snout above the teeth on to the palate4 ,in the shortness of the nose it somewhat resembles the 8,p4 giganteus 7,bowerbank71 but the jaw attenuates less rapidly1 is truncated1 and has larger teeth4 ,,xix4 ,ornithocheirus enchorhynchus 7,seeley74 ,case4 ,comp4 ,tablet4 ,j c #be ,this species nearly resembles ,o4 brachyrhinus1 from which it differs in larger size1 with a relatively wider palate1 which is without a keel1 and in a larger front pair of teeth4 ,it approximates towards ,o1 colorhinus1 but is smaller1 and wants the rugose lunate area over the front pair of teeth characteristic of that species4 ,there are many varieties or species nearly related to this type1 but from their imperfect preservation and the small part of the head which they represent1 it is not possible to give descriptions of them4 ,,xx4 ,ornithocheirus eurygnathus 7,seeley74 ,case4 ,comp4 ,series4 ,tablet4 ,j c#c #af #a ,a fragment of a 8dentary bone1 fractured behind through the socket for the third tooth4 ,the sockets are nearly circular4 ,it measures about an inch long11 and behind the socket for the second tooth #a-c_/d inch high4 ,the sides of the jaw are gently concave from above downward1 having a pinched aspect and approximating2 they round into a narrow rostral ridge1 which widens towards the tip of the snout and is truncated by a small sub-circular or sub-pentagonal rugose area at right angles with the part of the palate behind the first pair of sockets4 ,the first pair of sockets are nearly as large as the second1 and from the steep incline of the jaw look more than usually upward2 they are #g_/afths of an inch long1 are separated from each other by an interspace of #f_/af ths1 and from the second sockets by an interspace of more than #a_/hth of an inch1 while the second socket is separated from the third by about #a_/dth of an inch4 ,the palatal space between the second pair is about #c_/dths of an inch4 ,,xxi4 ,ornithocheirus colorhinus 7,seeley74 ,case4 ,comp4 ,tablet4 ,specimen4 ,j c #ag #a1 #b ,fragments of premaxillary bones4 ,the largest portion is #b-a_/b inches long1 and is fractured behind the socket for the fourth tooth1 and the upper part of the nose is also broken away4 ,the palate is flattened1 with the median part slightly convex4 ,the sides of the jaw converge upward1 but not rapidly2 in front they round into each other1 but there is a slight mesial depression4 ,the front pair of teeth are large1 separated from each other and from the second pair by films of bone4 ,above the first pair of sockets1 so as to look downward and forward1 is an impressed lunate area #i_/afths of an inch wide and #e_/afths of an inch high1 to which a soft lip may have been attached4 ,this area is in the same plane with the first pair of teeth and at right angles with the upper outline of the nose4 ,the sockets of the first pair of teeth are a little smaller than the second pair2 they are both about half an inch in diameter and nearly circular4 ,an interspace of #c_/afths of an inch separates the second socket from the third4 ,the tooth is elliptical1 the socket being narrower and longer than that of the second4 ,the palatal interspace between the third pair is more than #c_/dths of an inch4 ,the interspace between the third and fourth sockets is about #c_/hths of an inch4 ,the diameter of the nearly circular fourth socket is #a_/dth of an inch4 ,the overhanging lunate lip space1 with the size of the teeth and width of the palate1 abundantly distinguish this species4 ,,xxii4 ,ornithocheirus woodwardi 7,owen74 ,case4 ,comp4 ,tablet4 ,specimen4 ,j c #ah #a-d ,i regard the fragment on which this species was founded as being the terminal end1 and not a section of a jaw2 partly from the rounding of the lateral surfaces to the front1 and chiefly from the snapped off teeth in the middle of the truncated anterior end1 for they are smaller than the pair behind them1 and look forward at a greater angle1 so that the converging sockets of both pairs meet behind4 ,these characters are well shown in ,mr ,dinkel's excellent figure1 ,pl4 ,,ii4 fig4 #c;a4 ,second ,sup4 ,palont4 ,the palate is destroyed1 and gives no clue to the bone being either lower or upper4 ,another specimen1 rather smaller1 shows the rostrum well rounded2 the front is truncated at right angles to it3 there is the same rounding of its lower part into the sides1 and the stumps of the front pair of teeth are visible though they are again worn level with the rugose front of the snout4 ,but the finest fragment of this species is a rostral end1 7perhaps of the upper jaw7 three inches long1 two inches deep1 and with the palate as wide4 ,it indicates #e teeth on a side3 the front pair small1 #bnd and #crd much larger1 and two pairs behind1 which are smaller4 ,the palate is flat1 and attains its greatest width at the third tooth1 behind which it contracts noticeably4 ,the third tooth is more than half an inch in diameter1 the fourth is #e_/afths of an inch long4 ,the spaces between teeth seem equal to the long diameter of the sockets1 which are oval and straight4 ,the sides round into the front of the muzzle more gradually in this specimen than in the others4 ,an impressed line runs along the median ridge of the upper surface4 ,just as the jaw gets narrower behind1 so the well-rounded upper surface becomes more acute behind4 ,behind the third socket the palate measures #a-g_/h inch from side to side1 and the jaw is there nearly #b inches high4 ,this is the most massive ,pterodactyle jaw known4 ,in the recent state it may have indicated a creature sufficiently distinguished from those to which the smaller fossils belonged1 but now the divergence of characters is so slight as to be for zoological purposes of no value4 ,it is related to ,o4 ,fittoni2 the chief points of difference being the truncated muzzle1 the compression behind the third tooth1 the much sharper 787 dorsal ridge1 and the large size of the head4 ,,xxiii4 ,ornithocheirus capito 7,seeley74 ,case4 ,comp4 ,series4 ,tablet4 ,j c#c #ad #a ,a fragment of premaxillary bone1 well distinguished from every other specimen1 except one in the collection of ,mr ,reed of ,york1 which is here named ,o4 ,reedi4 ,it is a large head1 with larger teeth than any known species4 ,the jaw is truncated in front1 with a rugose vertical area in front reaching #a-c_/d inch high from the palate1 on which the usual front pair of teeth are not seen4 ,at the angle of this front area with the palate is a large elliptical tooth #i_/afths of an inch wide1 and behind it1 with an interspace of #c_/afths of an inch1 is a socket measuring #aj_/afths of an inch in length2 the next interspace is about #a_/hth of an inch1 and the next nearly circular socket is #e_/afths long2 then another interspace of #a_/hth of an inch1 and another and a smaller tooth4 ,the palate appears to have been channelled4 ,the sides of the jaw are flat1 or slightly concave1 and where fractured above1 are #c inches high4 ,above the rugose vertical area of the snout1 is an area1 concave from back to front1 reaching up to the rostral keel2 it is flat from side to side behind1 and convex from side to side in front4 ,so much as is preserved measures #a-c_/d inch in length1 and appears to be relatively narrower than in ,o4 ,reedi4 ,,xxiv4 ,ornithocheirus ,reedi 7,seeley74 ,the anterior part of an upper jaw has flattened slightly concave sides1 which converge above so as to form boundaries of 7#a7 a flat triangular area which looks anteriorly1 and of 7#b7 an oblong area1 traversed by a mesial groove1 which looks upward and forward and is concave from back to front4 ,in the lower half of the truncated triangular anterior termination are the remains of the stumps of the two anterior teeth2 they are oval in outline1 #i_/afths of an inch high1 and #g_/afths of an inch wide2 they are parted by an interspace nearly #a_/d of an inch wide1 which becomes concave vertically as it rounds on to the palatal surface4 ,all the front triangular surface above the teeth is rough3 its entire height is about #a-a_/d inch1 and is nearly as wide across the base4 ,the side rounds a little into the concave median upper surface1 and into the triangular front2 so much as is preserved measures #b-a_/b inches high1 and #a-c_/h inch long4 ,the palatal surface1 which is very small and badly preserved1 is #a-c_/d inch wide behind1 but gives no indication of further widening4 ,on its outer border are seen two large circular teeth #e_/hths of an inch in diameter2 they are separated by a median palatal interspace of #g_/hths of an inch4 ,where it is fractured behind1 the specimen shows the sockets of another pair of teeth behind these1 with an interspace of #a_/d of an inch in the antero-posterior direction4 ,the palate is convex4 ,the superior oblong area is concave in length as well as transversely4 ,it makes a great angle with the triangular front of which it is the upward continuation2 so much as is preserved extends #a-a_/b inch in length2 it is about #a_/b an inch wide4 ,i am indebted to ,w4 ,reed1 ,esq4 of ,york1 for the opportunity of making a notice of this species1 which closely resembles ,o4 capito4 99 99 99 99 99 ,the species which follow were separated in the ,index to the ,ornithosauria1 c4 as a different genus4 ,that proposal might still be sustained1 for these massive truncated jaws are unlike the spear-shaped jaws of many of the species4 ,and to the minds of some readers the forms already described will arrange themselves in groups which not improbably indicate genera4 ,but a re-examination of the type ,pterodactylus simus 7,owen7 has convinced me that it is a lower jaw1 and therefore it affords no evidence of the presence or absence of the peculiar front premaxillary teeth which characterize nearly all the ,cretaceous species4 ,,xxv4 ,ornithocheirus simus 7,owen74 ,case4 ,comp4 ,specimen4 ,j c #af ,the palate is #b-c_/d inches long1 and at the second pair of teeth about #g_/hths of an inch wide4 ,it is fractured at the end through the fifth socket1 and at the side along the palatal groove4 ,the first pair of teeth is smaller and closer together than the others4 ,the palatal interspace between the second pair is #c_/hths of an inch2 between the third pair1 which are large teeth1 it is #a_/b an inch4 ,the sockets are sub-circular1 and are not separated from each other by wider interspaces than their own length4 ,in front is a long triangular rugose area1 convex from above downward1 a distance of #a-a_/b inch2 and concave from side to side1 a width above of rather more than #a_/b an inch4 ,below this the flattened sides converge to a blunt keel2 where1 fractured1 the jaw is #b-a_/b inches deep4 ,there are several fragments of species allied to the last2 one has the triangular area in front very small1 only half as high as in the type and very narrow1 for the sides are gently rounded into it4 ,it is marked by short longitudinal furrows1 impressed vessels ,i think1 while in ,o4 simus the surface is irregularly rough4 ,the first pair of teeth are much larger than in ,o4 simus2 they are longer1 more conical1 and circular1 and separated by as wide a space as the second pair4 ,there is not much to found a species on1 but as it appears to be quite distinct from ,o4 simus1 it is named ,o4 ,carteri4 ,another fragment1 with the area very long1 is marked ,o4 platyrhinus4 ,but a sufficiency of species has been indicated to make known the ,ornithosaurian fauna of the ,cambridge ,greensand4 ,and the detailed description of critical types and of the other parts of the skeletons is beyond the general osteology of the tribe1 and will rather belong to a memoir in which this flock of ,pterodactyles will be restored to their living forms4 99 99 99 99 99 ,a fragment of the lower jaw of a large ,ornithocheirus has been obtained from an outlier of the ,upper ,greensand at ,rocken ,end in the ,isle of ,wight4 ,it appears to indicate a distinct species4 ,it is #b-a_/b inches long1 and shows three large teeth still preserved in their sockets4 ,the extreme width outside the third pair of sockets is nearly #b inches4 ,the sides1 which are slightly concave from above downward1 converge so as to give the broken end a triangular outline4 ,in front is a small sub-triangular area1 deeply scored with vascular markings2 below this the outline slopes obliquely backward1 and the two sides there round convexly into each other4 ,the first socket is #g_/afths of an inch long1 the tooth coarsely striated1 and like the others elliptical2 the interspace between the first and the second teeth is #e_/afths of an inch4 ,the second tooth1 probably immature1 is an inch in length1 smooth1 and like the third traversed in front and behind by a slight lateral ridge2 at the base it measures #e_/afths of an inch from front to back4 ,the third tooth is rather less than #e_/hths of an inch from front to back4 ,the interspace between the first and second sockets1 which the teeth do not entirely fill1 is more than #a_/d of an inch4 ,the posterior margin of each socket is elevated into a sort of collar4 ,,appendix4 ,enumeration of some of the principal writings on the ,ornithosauria 7selected chiefly from ,von ,meyer's ,reptilien aus dem ,lithographischen ,schiefer71 with references to the shelves in the ,cambridge ,university ,library1 where the books may be consulted4 ,agassiz 7,louis74--,memoires ,soc4 ,nat4 ,neuchtel1 ,vol4 #a1 p4 #ai1 paragraph notice in a memoir1 ,rsum des travaux de la section d'histoire naturelle1 et de celle des sciences medicales pendant l'anne1 #ahcc ,b4 #c4 #ff4 ,a briefer notice in a paper1 ,a ,period in the ,history of our ,planet1 in ,edinburgh ,new ,phil4 ,journal1 #ahdc1 ,vol4 #ce1 p4 #i1 quoted by ,von ,meyer ,,xxviii4 #cf4 #fe4 de ,blainville 7,d474--,osteographie2 ,palotherium1 p4 #i 7,vol4 #b71 quoted by v4 ,meyer ,,af4 #e4 #i4 ,bonaparte 7,c4 ,l474--,nuovi ,annali delle ,scienze ,naturali ,bologna#a1 ,vol4 #a1 #ahch1 p4 #cia2 ,vol4 #d1 #ahdj1 #bd ,sept4 p4 #ia4 ,blumenbach4--,manuel d',histoire naturelle1 d4 #ahjc1 ,vol4 #b1 p4 #djh ,b4 #ab4 #bj4 7,vergleichende ,anatomie1 #ahje1 p4 #ge71 #dd1 ,translation1 #ahjg ,tt4 #ah4 #ea4 ,handbuch der ,naturgeschichte1 #ahbe1 p4 #fbj ,yy4 #ci4 #f4 ,burmeister4--,gesellsch4 zu ,halle1 ,vol4 #c1 ,part #b1 #ahee2 ,viertel-jahrsbericht1 #bh ,april1 p4 #aa ,,xxvi4 #ej4 #b4 ,collini4--,acta ,acad4 ,theod4 ,palat4 #aghd1 ,vol4 #e1 p4 #eh1 pl4 #a4 #ag4 #e4 #cd4 ,cuvier4--,ossemens fossiles1 ,vol4 #e1 ,pt4 #b1 p4 #cei1 ed4 #ahbd1 pl4 #bc4 ,,vii4 #a4 #cf4 ,annales du ,museum1 #ahji1 ,vol4 #ac1 p4 #dbd ,b4 #db4 #ac4 ,rgne ,animal1 ed4 #ahej1 ,vol4 ,rept4 p4 #fb4 ,,xviii4 #ae4 #ae4 ,dumeril et ,bibron4--,erptologie gnrale1 ,vol4 #d1 p4 #edi4 ,b4 #cg4 #cc4 ,fischer4--,bibliotheca ,palontologica1 ,moscow1 #ahcd1 p4 #afc4 ,,lr4 #ae4 #eh4 ,fitzinger4--,systema ,reptilium#a1 #ahdc1 p4 #ce4 ,fraas4--,wrttemb4 naturw4 ,jahreshefte1 ,,xi4 #ahee1 p4 #ajb4 ,,xiii4 #bd4 #be4 ,giebel4--,jahresbericht des naturwiss4 ,vereins zu ,halle#a1 #ahdi-ej4 ,fauna der ,vorwelt1 #ahdg 7,vgel und ,amphib4 p4 #hi74 ,b4 #df4 #ag4 ,allgemeine ,palontologie#a1 #aheb1 p4 #bca4 ,goldfuss4--,nova ,acta ,leopold41 ,,xv4 ,part #a1 p4 #fc1 pl4 #g-aj4 #bc4 #d4 #fc4 ,van der ,hoeven4--,verslagen en ,mededeelingen van het ,k1 ,nederl4 ,institut over den ,jare1 #ahdf1 p4 #dcj4 #bc4 #f4 #acf4 ,merk4--,bald4 ,medic4 ,journ4 ,stck4 #aghg1 ,vol4 #d1 p4 #gd4 ,,xviii4 #bc4 #aj4 ,h4 von ,meyer4--,reptilien aus dem ,lithograph4 ,schiefer1 #ahei 7,fauna der ,vorwelt7 ,,kk4 #a4 #ee4 ,nova ,acta ,leopold41 ,,xv4 ,part #b1 #ahca1 p4 #aih1 pl4 #fj #bc4 #d4 #fd4 ,palologica1 #ahcb1 pp4 #aae1 #bbh ,x4 #bj4 #ci4 ,jahrb4 fr ,mineral4 #ahcg1 p4 #caf ,,xiii4 #ad4 #cb4 #ahch1 pp4 #dae1 #ffg ,,xiii4 #ad4 #cc4 #ahdc1 p4 #ehc ,,xiii4 #ad4 #ch4 ,palontographica1 ,vol4 #a1 p4 #ahdf ,b4 #dj4 #ec4 ,jahrb4 fr ,mineral4 #ahed1 p4 #ea ,,xiii4 #ad4 #ej4 #ahee1 p4 #cbh ,,xiii4 #ad4 #fa4 #ahef1 p4 #hbf ,,xiii4 #ad4 #eb4 #aheg1 p4 #ece ,,xiii4 #ad4 #ec4 #aheh1 p4 #fb ,,xiii4 #ad4 #fb4 ,von ,munster4--,jahrb4 fr ,mineral4 #ahcb1 p4 #dab ,,xiii4 #ad4 #bg4 ,nova ,acad4 ,leopold41 ,,xv4 ,part #a1 p4 #di1 pl4 #f #bc4 #d4 #fc4 ,jahrb4 fr ,mineral4 #ahcf1 p4 #ehj ,,xiii4 #ad4 #ca4 ,beitrge zur ,petrefaktenkunde1 i42 p4 #hc1 #ahci ,,xiii4 #aa4 #di4 ,jahrb4 fr ,mineral4 #ahci1 p4 #fgg ,,xiii4 #ad4 #cd4 #ahdb1 p4 #ce ,,xiii4 #ad4 #cg4 ,a4 ,oppel4--,wrttemb4 naturw4 ,jahreshefte1 ,,xii4 #ahef1 p4 #cbf4 ,,xiii4 #bd4 #be4 ,wrttemb4 naturw4 ,jahreshefte1 ,,xiv4 #aheh1 p4 #ee ,,xiii4 #bd4 #bf4 ,oken4--,isis1 #ahah1 p4 #bdf1 pl4 #d ,,xxii4 #e4 #b4 #ahai1 p4 #aghh ,,xxii4 #e4 #c4 ,quenstedt4--,jahrb4 fr ,mineral4 #ahed1 p4 #egj ,,xiii4 #ad4 #ej4 ,ueber ,pterodactylus ,suevicus#a1 #dto4 #ahee4 ,sonst und ,jetzt#a1 #ahef1 p4 #acj4 ,wrttemb4 naturw4 ,jahreshefte1 ,,xiii4 #aheg1 p4 #da2 ,,xiv4 #aheh1 p4 #bii ,,xiii4 #bd4 #bf4 ,der ,jura1 #aheh1 p4 #hab ,b4 #dd4 #dh4 ,ritgen4--,nova ,acta ,leopold41 ,,xiii4 ,part #a1 #ahbf1 p4 #cbi1 pl4 #af4 #bc4 #d4 #fh4 ,th4 von ,smmerring4--,denkschriften ,akad4 ,mnchen1 #ahab1 ,vol4 ,,iv4 p4 #hi1 pl4 #e-gb #bc4 #c4 #bh4 #ahbj1 ,vol4 ,,vi4 pp4 #hi1 #ajb1 pl4 #bc4 #c4 #ca4 ,spix4--,denkschriften ,akad4 ,mnchen1 ,,vi4 #ahbj1 p4 #ei #bc4 #c4 #ca4 ,theodori4--,notiz fr ,nat4 u4 ,heilk4 #ahcj1 ,no4 #fbc1 p4 #aja4 #bd4 #b4 #bh4 ,bericht des naturforschenden ,vereins in ,bamberg1 #aheb1 p4 #ag4 ,wagler4--,system der ,amphibien1 #ahcj1 p4 #fa1 figs4 #a1 #b4 ,wagner 7,a474--,abhandl4 ,bayerischen ,akad41 ,,ii4 #ahcg1 p4 #afc1 pl4 #bc4 #c4 #da4 ,,vi4 ,part #a1 #ahea1 p4 #abi1 pl4 #e1 #f2 ,part #c1 #aheb1 p4 #fij1 pl4 #ai #bc4 #c4 #de4 ,,viii4 ,part #b1 #aheh1 p4 #dci1 pl4 #ae-ag #bc4 #c4 #fa4 ,footnote #a3 ,may be consulted on application to the ,librarian4 ,footnote #b3 ,good figure4 ,chief ,english ,writings on ,ornithosaurians4 ,j4 ,s4 ,bowekbank4--,quart4 ,jour4 ,geol4 ,soc4 #ahdf1 p4 #g4 ,,vii4 #c4 #db4 ,quart ,jour4 ,geol4 ,soc4 #ahdh1 p4 #b4 ,,vii4 #c4 #dd4 ,proc4 ,zool4 ,soc4 #ahea1 p4 #ad4 ,,xviii4 #ah4 #c4 ,w4 ,buckland4--,geol4 ,trans4 ,ser4 #b1 ,vol4 ,,iii4 p4 #bag4 ,,xiii4 #b4 #h4 ,geology and ,mineralogy1 ,vol4 ,i4 p4 #bba1 ,vol4 ,,ii4 p4 #ca1 pl4 #ba1 #bb4 ,zz4 #cd4 #aj4 ,t4 ,h4 ,huxley4--,quart4 ,jour4 ,geol4 ,soc4 #ahei1 p4 #feh4 ,,vii4 #c4 #ce4 ,introduction to ,classification of ,animals1 #ahfi1 p4 #aaj ,b4 #da4 #gj4 ,proc4 ,zool4 ,soc4 #ahfg1 p4 #dag4 ,,xviii4 #ah4 #ai4 ,g4 ,a4 ,mantell4--,geol4 ,trans4 ,ser4 #b1 ,vol4 ,v4 p4 #agj4 ,,xiii4 #b4 #aj4 ,quart4 ,jour4 ,geol4 ,soc4 ,vol4 ,,ii4 p4 #ajd4 ,,vii4 #c4 #db4 ,r4 ,owen4- ,geol4 ,trans4 ,ser4 #b1 ,vol4 ,,vi4 #ahdj1 p4 #daa4 ,,xiii4 #b4 #ab4 ,brit4 ,assoc4 ,reports1 #ahda1 p4 #aef4 ,,ii4 #f4 #aj4 ,quart4 ,jour4 ,geol4 ,soc4 ,vol4 ,,ii4 p4 #if4 ,,vii4 #c4 #db4 ,british ,fossil ,mammals and ,birds1 #ahdf1 p4 #ede4 ,,ix4 #e4 #ae4 ,odontography1 ,vol4 ,i4 p4 #bgc4 ,,ix4 #aj4 #bc4 ,dixon's ,geology of ,sussex1 #ahej1 p4 #dja4 ,,vii4 #a4 #e4 ,palont4 ,soc4 ,monograph1 ,owen1 #ahea1 p4 #hj4 ,,xviii4 #ad4 #ag4 ,proc4 ,zool4 ,soc4 #ahea1 p4 #ba4 ,,xviii4 #ah4 #c4 ,british ,assoc4 ,reports1 #aheh1 p4 #ig1 sec4 ,,ii4 #f4 #bg4 ,philosophical ,trans4 ,royal ,soc1 #ahei1 ,vol4 #adi1 p4 #afa4 #ae4 #c4 #fa4 ,palontographical ,soc4 ,monograph1 #ahei4 ,,xviii4 #ad4 #ahfj4 ,,xviii4 #ad4 #i4 ,palontology1 p4 #bdd4 ,b4 #df4 #bi4 ,anat4 ,vertebrates1 ,vol4 ,i4 pp4 #f1 #ah1 #afa1 #age1 #aib1 ,vol4 ,,ii4 p4 #ac4 ,,ix4 #aa4 #bb4 ,h4 ,g4 ,seeley4--,british ,assoc4 ,reports1 #ahfd1 p4 #fi1 sec4 ,,ii4 #f4 #cc4 ,annals of ,natural ,history1 #ahfe1 ,vol4 ,,xv4 p4 #adh4 ,,xiii4 #cj4 #bi4 #ahff1 ,vol4 ,,xvii4 p4 #cba4 ,,xiii4 #cj4 #ca4 #ahfi1 ,vol4 ,,iii4 p4 #dfe4 ,,xiii4 #cj4 #cg4 ,index to ,aves ,ornithosauria and ,reptilia1 p4 #d1 p4 #hi4 ,,vii4 #f4 #ga4 ,,index4 ,affinities1 #bd1 #id ,albatross1 #ca ,alisphenoid1 #ha ,appendix1 #abi ,archopteryx1 #h ,aspect1 #aje ,astylica1 #ig ,atlas and axis1 #fd ,avian carpus1 #eb ,basi-occipital bone1 #gh ,basi-sphenoid1 #hj ,bat1 #ca1 #aje ,birds1 #eb ,blainville1 #ig ,body1 #ajh ,bonaparte1 #aji ,brain1 #be ,brain-cavity1 #hg ,buckland1 #fj ,burmeister1 #ag ,cambridge upper ,greensand1 #b ,camel1 #dg ,carp1 #gi ,carpus1 #dh ,carruthers 7,mr71 #ajf ,caudal vertebr1 #ge ,cerebral lobes1 #hg ,cervical vertebr1 #fe ,cetaceans1 #cj ,chameleon1 #ca1 #cd1 #cg1 #da1 #dg1 #gb ,chelydra1 #fa ,chrysochloris1 #db1 #dg ,ciconia marabou1 #hf ,circulation1 #ajj ,classification1 #ajh ,claw phalange1 #ei ,cod1 #gi ,coracoid1 #cb ,cranium1 #hj ,crocodile1 #ca1 #ce1 #cg1 #da1 #dg1 #fc1 #fi1 #hc1 #ic1 #ie1 #ig ,cuvier1 #g1 #ib ,cycnorhamphus1 #aaa ,delphinid1 #hc ,dentary bone1 #ib ,dicynodonts1 #fa ,dimensions1 #ajc ,dimorphodon1 #aab1 #fj ,dinornis1 #fg ,dinosaurs1 #ii1 #fa ,dipnoal reptiles1 #ii ,dorsal vertebr1 #fi ,echidna1 #fa 8,eggs1 #ajf ,epipubic bones 7see prepubic bones7 ,evidence that ,pterodactyles were ,reptiles1 #e ,facial bones1 #ia ,families1 #aaj ,femur1 #fb ,fibula1 #fc1 #bb ,food1 #aje ,fore-arm1 #dh ,gallus domesticus1 #ij1 #hb1 #cd ,genera1 #aaa ,german ,pterodactyles1 #ajf ,goldfuss1 #aa1 #fc ,goose1 #ib ,grouping of reptiles1 #ig ,gypogeranus serpentarius1 #db ,habits1 #ajd ,hand1 #ec ,hare1 #hg ,head #ah1 #gg1 #ajf ,history1 #c ,horse1 #da ,how the meaning of the word reptile is lost1 #ih ,humerus1 #ch ,huxley 7,prof71 #hf1 #aaf ,ichthyosaurus1 #cd1 #cg ,iguana1 #da1 #dg1 #fi1 #hb ,ilium1 #fj ,ischium1 #fj ,jerboa1 #fd ,kangaroo1 #ee1 #fi ,ligamentum teres1 #fb ,lower jaw1 #ia ,llama1 #gg1 #fi ,malar bone1 #ajg ,mammalian ,affinities1 #ca1 #cd1 #hg1 #da1 #db1 #fa1 #fb1 #fi1 #ge1 #gi1 #hc1 #hf1 #id1 #aje ,manubrium1 #bi ,marsupial bones1 #fa1 #aaj ,materials1 #a ,mergus merganser1 #ca ,metacarpus1 #ec ,metatarsus1 #fc ,meyer 7,h4 von71 #ag1 #aji ,mole1 #cj1 #cg ,monimostylica1 #ig ,monitor1 #da1 #dg1 #fi1 #gb1 #hf ,monotremata1 #cd ,mould of ,brain-cavity1 #hg ,objections to ,prof4 ,owen's grouping1 #ii ,occipital bones1 #ha ,oken1 #aj ,optic lobes1 #hd ,orbito-ethmo-sphenoid bone1 #he ,orbits1 #ajg ,organization1 #g ,ornithocephalus1 #aaa ,ornithocheirus1 #aab ,ornithorhynchus1 #hh ,ornithosauria1 #bg ,ossemens fossiles1 #g ,ostrich1 #eb1 #eh1 #hf ,owen 7,prof4 ,r471 #c1 #bi1 #cb1 #cf1 #dh1 #ed1 #ef1 #fd1 #ff1 #fi1 #ge1 #gh1 #hh1 #ia1 #ib1 #ih1 #ajh1 #aae ,pachyrhamphus1 #aaa ,parrot1 #hg ,palontology1 #aji ,parietal bones1 #ha ,parker 7,mr ,w4 ,k471 #gi ,pectoral girdle1 #bh ,pelvis1 #ei ,penguin1 #h1 #fi ,petrosal1 #hb ,phalange1 #ef ,plan of organisation1 #be ,pneumatic cavities1 #bc1 #bf1 #ajj ,porpoise1 #hf ,post frontal1 #ajg ,premaxillary bones1 #ia1 #ajg ,prepubic bones 7prepubic71 #fa1 #aaj1 #aaa ,pterodactyle's place in nature1 #ajb ,pterodactylus1 #aaa ,pteroid bone1 #dh ,pterosauria1 #ii1 #ajh 8,pterygoid end of palatine bone1 #ia ,quadrate bone1 #hi1 #ajg ,quadrato-jugal1 #ij ,quenstedt1 #ag1 #ba ,radius1 #db ,reptilia1 #id ,respiration1 #bf1 #ajj ,restoration1 #ajc ,rhamphorhynchus1 #aaa ,ribs1 #ajh ,roc1 #e ,sacrum1 #gc ,scapula1 #ce ,scink1 #da1 #gb ,second phalange1 #eg ,smmerring1 #aj ,species1 #aab ,squamosal bone1 #ha ,stannius1 #ig ,sternum1 #bh ,streptostylica1 #ig ,struthious birds1 #ca1 #gb ,tarso-metatarsus1 #fc ,teeth1 #ib ,tibia1 #fb ,ulna1 #dc ,vertebral column1 #fd 8,vomer1 #hh ,wagler1 #aa ,wagner1 #ad ,walker 7,mr ,j4 ,f471 #hg ,walking1 #aje ,walrus1 #gi ,wing-finger1 #ff ,,the ,,end4 ,cambridge39999 ,old ,eng ,,printed ,,by ,c4 ,j4 ,,clay1 ,m4,a4 ,,at ,,the ,,university ,,press4 ,,plate ,i4,,ab ,sternum and ,scapula4 ,fig4 #a4 ,fore-part of sternum showing the ovate synovial facet for the coracoid4 ,j4a4#a1 p4 #bh4 ------------------ #b4 ,outside of the proximal end of a right scapula4 ,largest specimen4 ,j4a4#c1 no4 #b1 p4 #ce4 #c4 ,outside of greater portion of a left scapula4 ,j4a4#c1 no4 #ac4 #d4 ,inner side of a small right scapula4 ,j4a4#c1 no4 #ab4 #e4 ,outside of proximal end of a right scapula4 ,j4a4#c1 no4 #c4 #f4 ,surface of ,j4a4#c1 no4 #c4 articulating with humerus4 #g4 ,outside of distal end of a scapula4 ,j4a4#d1 no4 #a4 #h4 ,view of the distal termination of a scapula4 #i4 ,view of proximal end of left scapula looking from the distal toward the articular end4 ,j4a4#c1 no4 #ag4 #aj4 ,proximal end of right scapula where united with coracoid1 looking at the scapula from the articulation4 ,j4c#d4ah4f4 ,compare fig4 #f4 #aa4 ,inner surface of same specimen showing the pneumatic foramen at the union of scapula and coracoid4 #ab4 ,outer view of the same specimen4 ,footnote ,,ab3 ,for the ,lithographic details of plates #a to #c1 the author is not answerable4 ,accidents happened to these plates in the printing1 and they were replaced without his knowledge by good copies2 which however have sometimes deprived the bones of their characters4 ,,scapula ,pl4 #a4 ,illustration ,,plate ,,ii4 ,coracoid and ,radius4 ,fig4 #a4 ,outer side view of left coracoid4 ,j4c#c4af4e1 p4 #cb4 #b4 ,back view of the same specimen showing the surface which unites with the scapula4 #c4 ,outer side view of perfect right coracoid4 ,j4c#d4ah4 #e4 ,near the figure #c is the pneumatic notch4 #d4 ,view of the proximal articular surface of a right coracoid4 ,j4a4#b1 no4 #bc4 #e4 ,inner view of distal end of left coracoid4 ,j4a4#b1 no4 #ah4 #f4 ,the distal articulation of the same specimen4 ------------------ #g4 ,fragment of proximal end of radius #d_/e nat4 size4 ,j4a4#aa1 no4 #g1 p4 #df4 #h4 ,proximal end of radius4 ,j4a4#aa1 no4 #a4 #i4 ,proximal articular surface of radius from the same specimen4 ,,coracoid ,,and ,,radius ,pl4 #b4 ,illustration ,,plate ,,iii4 ,radius and ,ulna4 ,fig4 #a4 ,inner view of distal end of right radius4 ,j4a4#aj1 no4 #b1 p4 #dd4 #b4 ,outer view of distal end of right radius4 ,j4a4#aj1 no4 #c4 #c4 ,distal articulation of right radius4 ,j4a4#aj1 no4 #f4 ------------------ #d4 ,inner view of proximal end of ulna with olecranon anchylosed1 p4 #de4 #e4 ,side view of the same specimen4 ,j4a4#i1 no4 #a4 #f4 ,proximal end of ulna from which the olecranon has come away4 ,j4a4#i1 no4 #e4 #g4 ,proximal articular surface of same specimen4 #h4 ,proximal articular surce of ulna4 ,j4a4#i1 no4 #d4 #i4 ,proximal articular end of ulna from which the olecranon has come away4 ------------------ #aj4 ,distal end of right ulna4 ,j4a4#ac1 no4 #e1 p4 #dc4 #aa4 ,distal articulation of the same specimen4 #ab4 ,distal end of left ulna4 ,j4a4#ab1 no4 #c4 #ac4 ,distal articulation of the same specimen4 ,,radius ,,and ,,ulna ,pl4 #c4 ,illustration ,,plate ,,iv4 ,humerus4 ,fig4 #a4 ,a nearly perfect right humerus1 from ,ashwell4 ,j4a4#f1 no4 #cj1 p4 #ch4 #b4 ,same specimen seen from the proximal end1 so as to display the distal end1 twisted at right angles with the radial crest4 ,the pneumatic foramen is on the anterior and radial side4 #c4 ,proximal end of left humerus showing the radial crest perfect4 ,j4a4#f4 #be4 #d4 ,articular surface of same specimen showing the termination of the radial crest4 #e4 ,posterior aspect of proximal end of right humerus4 ,the pneumatic foramen is on the posterior and ulnar side4 #f4 ,proximal articular surface of left humerus4 ,j4a4#f1 no4 #b4 #g4 ,distal end of right humerus4 ,j4a4#f1 no4 #bi4 #h4 ,distal articulation of left humerus4 ,j4a4#f1 no4 #de4 #i4 ,distal end of same specimen4 #aj4 ,distal end of left humerus4 ,j4a4#f4bj4 #aa4 ,distal end of right humerus4 ,j4a4#f4df4 #ab4 ,distal end of left humerus4 ,j4a4#f4cd4 #ac4 ,distal end of left humerus from a specimen lent by ,j4 ,b4 ,lee1 ,esq4 #ad4 ,distal end of left humerus4 ,j4a4#f4ce4 ,,humerus ,pl4 #d4 ,illustration ,,plate ,v4 ,carpal ,bones4 ,fig4 #a4 ,distal surface of right proximal carpal bone1 p4 #dh4 #b4 ,same specimen seen from outer end1 showing the large unarticular surface1 above is a part of the distal articulation4 ,j4b4#a1 no4 #a4 7figured upside down74 #c4 ,proximal articular surface of right proximal carpal bone4 ,j4b4#a1 no4 #g4 ,the right upper part is for the radius1 the left lower part for the ulna4 #d4 ,view of same specimen 7upside down7 from the ulnar side4 #e4 ,view of same specimen from the radial side4 ------------------ #f4 ,portion of distal articular surface of a right distal carpal bone4 ,j4b4#c1 no4 #bc1 #d_/e nat4 size1 p4 #ej4 #g4 ,front radial side of right distal carpal4 ,j4b4#c4bd4 #h4 ,back ulnar side of the same specimen4 #i4 ,proximal articular surface of the same distal carpal4 #aj4 ,distal articular surface of the same distal carpal4 #aa4 ,view of the proximal articular surface of the same distal carpal1 seen from the inside4 #ab4 ,perfect element of left distal carpal bone showing the distal carpal bone to be composite4 #ac4 ,distal surface of a right distal carpal of another genus4 ,j4b4#c1 no4 #bj4 ------------------ #ad4 ,lateral carpal or pisiform bone1 seen from the inside1 the distal articular talon partly broken4 ,j4b4#d1 no4 #b4 #ae4 ,lateral carpal seen from the outside4 ,j4b4#d4i4 #af4 ,same bone showing the distal articulation1 p4 #ea4 #ag4 ,lateral carpal bone of a different genus1 seen from the inside4 ,,carpal ,,bones ,pl4 #e4 ,illustration ,,plate ,,vi4 ,wing ,metacarpal ,bone1 c4 ,fig4 #a4 ,fragment of the proximal end of a large wing-metacarpal bone4 ,j4b4#e1 no4 #i4 ,it is figured upside down1 a part of the surface articulating with the distal carpal bone being over the fig4 #a1 p4 #ec4 #b4 ,aspect of the proximal articular sur4ce of the wing-metacarpal bone4 ,j4b4#e1 no4 #c4 #c4 ,exterior aspect of the same specimen4 #d4 ,inner aspect of another proximal end4 ,j4b4#e1 no4 #d4 #e4 ,the greater part of a small wing-metacarpal bone4 ,j4b4#e1 no4 #a4 ,imperfect at the distal end4 #f4 ,distal end of a wing-metacarpal bone4 ,j4b4#e1 no4 #ca4 #g4 ,front aspect of the same specimen4 ------------------ #h4 ,distal end of metatarsal bone or of a metacarpal bone of a small finger4 ,j4b4#h1 no4 #a4 #i4 ,lateral aspect of a similar bone4 ,j4b4#h1 no4 #b4 ------------------ #aj4 ,outline of the imperfect distal termination of a bone regarded as left metatarsus of an ,ornithosaurian4 ,j4b4#ac1 p4 #fc4 #aa4 ,front aspect of the same specimen4 ------------------ #ab4 ,articular aspect of proximal end of first phalange of the wing-finger1 from which the terminal epiphysis has come away4 ,j4b4#f1 no4 #aj4 #ac4 ,diagram outline of the same specimen1 p4 #ef4 ,,wing-,,metacarpal ,,bone1 c4 ,pl4 #f4 ,illustration ,,plate ,,vii4 ,wing ,finger4 ,fig4 #a4 ,exterior aspect of proximal end of first phalange of the wing-finger4 ,j4c#c4af4ab1 p4 #ef4 #b4 ,inner aspect of proximal end of a small wing-metacarpal bone which has lost its proximal epiphysis2 it shows the notch for the pneumatic foramen4 ,j4c#a4h4h4 #c4 ,fragment of the proximal end of a large wing-metacarpal bone1 showing near the fig4 #c part of the articular surface4 ,j4c#c4ae4 #aj4 #d4 ,distal end of #a first phalange of the wing-finger4 ,j4c#f4ca4 #g1 no4 #a4 #e4 ,distal articular surface of a first phalange4 #f4 ,distal end of a first phalange4 ,j4b4#f1 no4 #d4 ------------------ #g4 ,proximal end of the second phalange of the wing-finger4 ,j4c#b4ab4ab1 p4 #eg4 #h4 ,proximal end of a small second phalange4 ,j4b4#g1 no4 #g4 #i4 ,proximal end of a large second phalange4 ,j4b4#g1 no4 #d4 ------------------ #aj4 ,side view of distal end of right femur4 ,j4b4#aa1 no4 #aa1 p4 #fb4 ,,wing ,,finger ,pl4 #g4 ,illustration ,,plate ,,viii4 ,pelvis1 ,femur1 ,tibia1 c4 ,fig4 #a4 ,fragment of a large right os innominatum4 ,the faint ,t-shaped lines in the acetabulum indicate the limits of the three component pelvic bones2 fig4 #a is placed at the posterior border of the ischium4 ,j4b4#aj1 no4 #a4 #b4 ,imperfect right os innominatum1 with the anterior and posterior wings of the ilium broken away4 ,j4b4#aj1 no4 #d1 p4 #fi4 #c4 ,imperfect left os innominatum showing the small obturator foramen which divides the pubis from the ischium4 ,on the anterior border of the pubis is seen a depression1 which may have given attachment to the prepubic bone4 ,j4b4#aj1 no4 #c4 #d4 ,visceral aspect of an imperfect right ischium4 ,j4c#d4bj4b4 ------------------ #e4 ,exterior side aspect of a right femur4 ,j4c#b4aa4 #bj4 #f4 ,front aspect of the same specimen1 p4 #fb4 #g4 ,posterior aspect of proximal end of right femur of a different genus1 showing a pit for the obturator muscle4 ,j4b4#aa1 no4 #a4 #h4 ,front aspect of the same specimen4 #i4 ,outline of the proximal articular end2 the obturator pit is darkened4 #aj4 ,posterior aspect of distal end of right femur4 ,j4b4#aa1 no4 #bj4 #aa4 ,outline of the distal articular end of the same specimen4 #ab4 ,distal end of a large right femur4 ,j4b4#aa1 no4 #ab4 ------------------ #ac4 ,proximal end of tibia 78 front aspect74 ,j4b4#ab1 no4 #h4 #ad4 ,another view of the same specimen1 p4 #fb4 #ae4 ,outline of the articular aspect of the same tibia4 ,the non-articular part is shaded4 ------------------ #af4 ,claw phalange4 ,j4c#a4b4e1 p4 #fi4 #ag4 ,claw phalange4 ,j4c4#i1 no4 #d4 ,,pelvis1 ,,femur1 ,,tibia1 c4 ,pl4 #h4 ,illustration ,,plate ,,ix4 ,neck ,vertebr4 ,fig4 #a4 ,anterior aspect of an axis to which the atlas was not anchylosed4 ,j4c#c4ae4 #b1 p4 #fd4 #b4 ,anchylosed atlas and axis seen from the base of the vertebra4 ,j4c4#a1 no4 #h4 #c4 ,anchylosed atlas and axis seen from above4 ,j4c4#a1 no4 #ad4 #d4 ,atlas1 neural arch imperfect4 ,j4c4#a1 no4 #aj4 #e4 ,anchylosed atlas and axis seen from the side1 the neural arch of the atlas is wanting4 ,the light space in the centrum of the axis is the pneumatic foramen4 ,j4c4#a1 no4 #ad4 ------------------ #f4 ,large cervical vertebra seen from below4 ,j4c4#b1 no4 #db1 p4 #fe4 #g4 ,small cervical vertebra seen from below4 ,j4c4#b1 no4 #dc4 #h4 ,cervical vertebra seen from behind4 ,j4c4#b1 no4 #e4 #i4 ,cervical vertebra seen from above4 ,j4c4#b1 no4 #bc4 #aj4 ,cervical vertebra seen from the left side4 ,j4c#f4bg4a1 no4 #d4 #aa4 ,cervical vertebra of another genus seen from the left side4 ,j4c4#b1 no4 #ac4 #ab4 ,base of the centrum of the last true cervical vertebra4 ,j4c4#b1 no4 #dj4 #ac4 ,right side of cervical vertebra4 ,j4c4#b1 no4 #g4 ,,neck ,,vertebr ,pl4 #i4 ,illustration ,,plate ,x4 ,back and ,tail ,vertebr4 ,fig4 #a4 ,centrum of a vertebra from the region between the neck and the back1 called pectoral4 ,j4c4#c1 no4 #ai1 p4 #fi4 #b4 ,dorsal vertebra seen from below4 ,j4c#b4ab4c1 no4 #b4 #c4 ,the same specimen seen from behind4 #d4 ,right side view of a dorsal vertebra showing the neural spine nearly perfect4 ,j4c4#c1 no4 #bj4 #e4 ,the same specimen seen from behind4 #f4 ,right side of dorsal vertebra showing anterior and posterior zygapophyses4 ,the neural spine broken4 #g4 ,front view of the same specimen4 ,the centrum is seen to form but a small part of the anterior articular surface4 ------------------ #h4 ,bight side of a sacral vertebra ,j4c4#d1 no4 #a1 p4 #gc4 #i4 ,front aspect of the same specimen4 ,the neural arch forms part of the intervertebral articulation with the centrum4 #aj4 ,side view of the anterior part of a sacrum1 presented by ,h4 ,c4 ,raban ,esq4 ,j4c4#d1 no4 #c4 #aa4 ,the same specimen seen from below4 #ab4 ,inferior aspect of posterior part of sacrum of a different genus4 ,j4c4#d1 no4 #b4 ------------------ #ac4 ,large caudal vertebra seen from above4 ,j4c4#e1 no4 #i4 #ad4 ,the same specimen seen from beneath1 p4 #ge4 #ae4 ,left side of the same specimen4 #af4 ,anterior articulation of the same specimen4 #ag4 ,posterior aspect of the same specimen4 ,,back ,,tail ,,vertebr ,pl4 #aj4 ,illustration ,,plate ,,xi4 ,cranium4 ,fig4 #a4 ,occipital aspect of the skull of a ,pterosaurian4 ,j4c4#h1 no4 #b1 p4 #hd4 #b4 ,anterior aspect of the same skull1 showing a transverse section of the brain cavity fractured through the parietal bones4 ,at its base on each side are seen the optic lobes4 #c4 ,anterior aspect of a ,pterodactyle skull of a different genus4 ,j4c4#h1 no4 #a4 ,the frontal bones have come away from the parietal at the suture1 p4 #hj4 #d4 ,superior aspect of the same specimen looking upon the parietal1 supra-occipital1 and ex-occipital bones4 #e4 ,occipital aspect of the same specimen1 showing the foramen magnum1 the absence of the basi-occipital bone1 and the basi-sphenoid mass4 #f4 ,side view of the same specimen1 showing below the girdling occipital crest the excavation for the quadrate bone's articulation with the skull1 and the forward prolongation of the basi-sphenoid mass4 #g4 ,palatal aspect of the basi-sphenoid bone4 ,j4c4#i4 ,to be compared with the small triangular mass in fig4 #e1 p4 #he4 #h4 ,side view of the ethmo-sphenoid mass1 ,j4c4#i1 showing the lateral boundary of the front of the cerebral hemispheres1 p4 #he4 #i4 ,posterior aspect of the same specimen1 showing parts of the cups which covered the anterior termination of the cerebral lobes4 #aj4 ,anterior view of the cerebral lobes in a natural mould of the brain1 in the collection of ,j4 ,f4 ,walker1 ,esq4 ,it may be compared with figs4 #b4 and #i1 p4 #hg4 #aa4 ,superior aspect of a natural mould of the brain1 showing the outline of the cerebral lobes1 and the cerebellum between them behind4 ,portions of bone in the temporal region are left attached1 p4 #hg4 #ab4 ,side view of the same specimen2 one cerebral lobe is seen behind the other4 ,the anterior termination of this figure may be compared with the posterior outline of fig4 #h4 #ac4 ,side view of basi-occipital bone1 p4 #gh4 #ad4 ,palatal aspect of quadrate bone1 showing the articulation for the lower jaw1 and the thin quadrato-jugal attached to its outside1 p4 #hi4 #ae4 ,exterior aspect of quadrato-jugal and quadrate bones4 ,above the articulation in ,german specimens is the outline of the orbit of the eye4 #af4 ,anterior aspect of the distal end of a left quadrate bone4 #ag4 ,posterior aspect of the same specimen1 showing the wing for the pterygoid articulation4 ,,cranium ,pl4 #aa4 ,illustration ,,plate ,,xii4 ,facial ,bones and ,lower ,jaw4 ,fig4 #a4 ,side view of the dentary bone of ,ornithocheirus machrorhynchus1 showing its posterior attenuation towards the palate4 ,j4c#f4cc4a1 p4 #aac4 #b4 ,superior aspect of the same specimen1 showing the palatal groove and tooth sockets4 #c4 ,articular end of left ramus of mandible1 ,j4#d1 showing its posterior termination1 p4 #ia4 #d4 ,articular end of left ramus of mandible1 ,j4c#f4cb4 #b1 fractured through the articulation4 #e4 ,side view of anterior part of dentary bone of ,ornithocheirus ,cuvieri 8 ,j4c4#ae1 p4 #aac4 #f4 ,side view of anterior part of premaxillary bone of ,ornithocheirus microdon1 fractured at both ends4 ,j4c4#bi1 p4 #aaf4 #g4 ,palatal aspect of the same specimen1 showing the palatal ridge and tooth sockets4 #h4 ,palatal aspect of anterior part of premaxillary bone of ,ornithocheirus denticulatus4 ,j4c#e4bh4a1 p4 #abb4 #i4 ,side view of the same specimen4 #aj4 ,tooth1 showing absorption by the successional tooth1 on the inner side of the fang4 ,j4c4#bg1 no4 #aj1 p4 #ib4 #aa4 ,tooth4 ,j4c#a4a4d4 #ab4 ,fang of a large tooth4 ,j4c4#bg1 no4 #cd4 #ac4 ,undetermined 8 pterygoid end of palatine bone4 ,j4c#a4b4g1 p4 #ia4 #ad4 ,other side of same specimen4 #ae4 #a ,vomer1 side view4 ,j4c4#aj1 no4 #b1 p4 #hh4 #af4 #a ,palatal view of the same specimen4 #ag4 ,pelvis with a bone attached like the middle part of ,j4c4#aj1 no4 #b4 8,neural arch of sacral vertebra4 ,,facial ,,bones ,,and ,,mandible ,pl4 #ab4 ,illustration 99 99 99 99 99 ,transcriber ,notes ,minor typos were corrected and the ,errata list changes were applied4 ,standardization of hyphenation was standardized to the most common form used4 ,headers for each genera's description was standardized to list the specimen information first4