diff options
| author | nfenwick <nfenwick@pglaf.org> | 2025-02-06 03:19:40 -0800 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | nfenwick <nfenwick@pglaf.org> | 2025-02-06 03:19:40 -0800 |
| commit | 062763e3f30292efe4ade47feb141f690fa8a431 (patch) | |
| tree | bebb3ee8517f6069a66083251756157224d91b72 | |
| parent | 9f641a40f360c7bc86e38a563fdbf8c937e8ddc2 (diff) | |
37 files changed, 17 insertions, 16710 deletions
diff --git a/.gitattributes b/.gitattributes new file mode 100644 index 0000000..d7b82bc --- /dev/null +++ b/.gitattributes @@ -0,0 +1,4 @@ +*.txt text eol=lf +*.htm text eol=lf +*.html text eol=lf +*.md text eol=lf diff --git a/LICENSE.txt b/LICENSE.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..6312041 --- /dev/null +++ b/LICENSE.txt @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ +This eBook, including all associated images, markup, improvements, +metadata, and any other content or labor, has been confirmed to be +in the PUBLIC DOMAIN IN THE UNITED STATES. + +Procedures for determining public domain status are described in +the "Copyright How-To" at https://www.gutenberg.org. + +No investigation has been made concerning possible copyrights in +jurisdictions other than the United States. Anyone seeking to utilize +this eBook outside of the United States should confirm copyright +status under the laws that apply to them. diff --git a/README.md b/README.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..f7c48a0 --- /dev/null +++ b/README.md @@ -0,0 +1,2 @@ +Project Gutenberg (https://www.gutenberg.org) public repository for +eBook #52655 (https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/52655) diff --git a/old/52655-0.txt b/old/52655-0.txt deleted file mode 100644 index 1777191..0000000 --- a/old/52655-0.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,7193 +0,0 @@ -The Project Gutenberg EBook of The Ornithosauria: an elementary study of -the bones of pterodactyles, by Harry Govier Seeley - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most -other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions -whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of -the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at -www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you'll have -to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this ebook. - -Title: The Ornithosauria: an elementary study of the bones of pterodactyles - made from fossil remains found in the Cambridge Upper - Greensand, and arranged in the Woodwardian museum of the - University of Cambridge - -Author: Harry Govier Seeley - -Release Date: July 27, 2016 [EBook #52655] - -Language: English - -Character set encoding: UTF-8 - -*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK ORNITHOSAURIA: AN ELEMENTARY STUDY *** - - - - -Produced by Tom Cosmas from materials made available on -Google Books and The Internet Archive - - - - - - - - - -Transcriber's Note: - -Italic text is denoted by _underscores_ and bold text by =equal signs=. -All corrections in the ERRATA section below have been made in the text. - - - - - -THE ORNITHOSAURIA: - - -AN ELEMENTARY STUDY - - -OF - - -THE BONES OF PTERODACTYLES. - - -Cambridge: - -PRINTED BY G. J. CLAY, M.A. AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS. - - - - -THE ORNITHOSAURIA: - - -AN ELEMENTARY STUDY - - -OF - - -THE BONES OF PTERODACTYLES, - - -_MADE FROM FOSSIL REMAINS FOUND IN THE -CAMBRIDGE UPPER GREENSAND,_ - -AND - -ARRANGED IN THE WOODWARDIAN MUSEUM OF THE -UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE - - -BY - - -HARRY GOVIER SEELEY, - -OF ST. JOHN'S COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE. - - -_WITH TWELVE PLATES._ - - -"_And when the appointed end comes, they lie not dishonoured in -forgetfulness_,"--Xenoph. _Memor._ Book 2, c. 1, § 83. - - -[Illustration: Cambridge:] - -DEIGHTON, BELL, AND CO. - -LONDON: BELL AND DALDY. - -1870. - - -[_All Rights reserved._] - - -_The expense of printing this volume has been defrayed out of the Funds -of the Syndics of the University Press; and Professor Sedgwick hereby -expresses his grateful thanks to them for this great favour._ - - - - -PREFACE. - - -This memoir is a portion of the Catalogue of the Woodwardian Museum -which has been made at Professor Sedgwick's request and at his cost. -When the Professor laid upon me his commands to prepare a Catalogue of -the Museum, it was planned in three distinct works. First, a series of -indexes to the specimens in the great divisions into which the Museum -is arranged; secondly, a series of memoirs upon the orders and classes -of animals concerning which new knowledge is given by fossils in the -Museum; and, thirdly, memoirs descriptive of those species contained -in the arranged collections which are at present unknown in scientific -writings. - -For the convenience of students the Catalogue is made in parts. The -Syndics of the University Press printed last autumn as an example of -the "Indexes to the Museum," an Index to the Pterodactyles, Birds, -and Reptiles from the Secondary Strata. And this memoir is an example -of the second kind of Catalogue, which explains the structures of the -Pterodactyles of the Cambridge Greensand. In its progress questions -have arisen which necessitated an examination both of the method, of -research in comparative anatomy and of its results in classification. -And in so far as the views here advanced differ from those commonly -taught, the discrepancy is due to the writer's imperfect faith in the -results of the inductive method of research, as commonly used by modern -writers on Palæontology. It has not been consistent with the plan of -this little work to do more than scatter through it a few hints upon -method, 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 Reptiles. The views here urged have however but little -of novelty. The name Ornithosauria was proposed by the distinguished -naturalist Prince Charles Bonaparte in 1838. The group as an order was -recognized by Von Meyer in 1830. The affinities of the brain appear -to have been detected by Oken, and the bird-like character of the -respiratory system was expounded by Von Meyer. And most of whatever -this memoir contains has been already thought or discovered by the -German philosophers, who have had the Pterodactyles as fossils of their -fatherland, though my own conclusions were arrived at separately and -from different materials. - -The oldest Ornithosaurians are from the Muschelkalk of Germany. -In England the oldest are from the Lias,--several species of -Dimorphodon--a genus in some respects nearly resembling the -Pterosaurians of the Cambridge Upper Greensand. In the Oolite of -Stonesfield are several species of Rhamphorhynchus or a similar genus. -The great Pælolithic period from the Oxford Clay to the Kimeridge -Clay, has yielded in its several divisions small Pterodactyles of -new species. And the Psammolithic period from the Portland Sand to -the Lower Greensand has afforded many excellent remains both of true -Pterosaurians in the Purbeck, Wealden, and Potton Sands, and of animals -which indicate a new order of Ornithosauria having affinities with -Von Meyer's thick footed saurians, the Dinosauria. In the Cretaceous -series, Galt, Upper Greensand, and Chalk all have representatives -of the Pterosauria; but no English stratum has hitherto yielded -so many as the Cambridge Upper Greensand. From this formation the -collection accumulated during Prof. Sedgwick's long professoriate is -unequalled; though, excepting a few fine bones from the Chalk and -the Purbeck Limestone, the Woodwardian Museum is as yet deficient in -Ornithosaurians from the other Secondary Rocks. Until descriptions -of these animals shall have been published a classification of the -Ornithosauria must necessarily be provisional. And it cannot be -expected that descriptions of the structure of Cretaceous Pterosaurians -here given will hold good for all the Ornithosaurian sub-class. - -Finally, I have gratefully to express my thanks to the many friends, -English and German, who have aided me with specimens and with their -writings; to the chiefs and officers of the English museums, especially -Prof. Owen, Prof Humphry, Prof Newton, Prof Phillips, Prof Flower, and -Prof. Huxley; to the officers of the University Library, especially -Mr Bradshaw, and Mr Crotch, for aid in consulting books; but chiefly -to Prof Sedgwick, who while employing me as his paid Assistant to -aid him in his Museum work, has generously encouraged me to carry on -for several years, without restraint and as part of my daily labour, -an investigation of which this treatise is the first fruit. Prof. -Sedgwick has placed at my disposal an ample number of copies for -distribution among those who take an interest in the Museum; and -especially among those who have contributed to the Ornithosaurian -collections, and aided me in my work. - - _January 3, 1870._ - - - - -CONTENTS. - - - _Page_ - Introduction 1 - Materials 1 - History 3 - Organization 7 - Cuvier 7 - Sömmerring 10 - Oken 10 - Wagler 11 - Goldfuss 11 - Wagner 14 - Quenstedt 17 - Burmeister 17 - Von Meyer 17 - Another view of the Ornithosauria 24 - - -------------- - - Osteological collection illustrative of modifications of Ornithosauria in - the Cambridge Greensand, pp. 28-94. - - Sternum 28 - Coracoid 32 - Scapula 35 - Humerus 38 - Radius and Ulna 42 - Proximal carpal 48 - Distal carpal 50 - Lateral carpal 51 - Metacarpal bone of wing-finger 53 - First phalange of wing-finger 56 - Second phalange of wing-finger 57 - Claw phalange 59 - Os innominatum 59 - Femur 62 - Tibia 62 - Tarso-metatarsus 63 - Atlas and axis 64 - Cervical vertebræ 65 - Dorsal vertebræ 69 - Sacrum 73 - Caudal vertebræ 75 - Bones of the head 77 - Basi-oocipital bone 78 - Back of the cranium 80 - Back of another cranium 84 - Ethmo-sphenoid 85 - Mould of the brain-cavity 87 - ?Vomer 88 - Quadrate bone 89 - ?Pterygoid end of palatine bone 91 - Premaxillary bones 91 - Lower jaw 91 - Teeth 92 - - -------------- - - - Conclusion 94 - A summing up 94 - Restoration 103 - Speculations on habits and aspect 104 - Notes on German specimens 106 - Classification 108 - Synopsis of species 112 - - -------------- - - - Appendix 129 - Index 133 - Plates, and explanation of Plates. - - - - -ERRATA. - - - PAGE LINE - - 4, 2, from bottom, _for_ procælian _read_ procÅ“lian. - - 7, 13, _for_ Ossements _read_ Ossemens. - - 8, last line, paragraph (2), _for_ outermost _read_ innermost. - - 10, 21, } - 11, 5, } _for_ Sömmering _read_ Sömmerring. - 11, 13, } - - 14, note, _for_ Beyerischen _read_ Bayerischen. - - 15, 5, _for_ ?zygapophyses _read_ spinous-processes. - - 17, 6, from bottom, _for_ Herman _read_ Hermann. - - 37, 5, from bottom, _after_ "spine as" _insert_ "are" - - 92, line above 'the Dentary Bone,' _for_ Pterodactyle _read_ - Pterodactyles. - - 97, 11, _for_ Günter _read_ Günther. - - 99, 4, _for_ Ichthyopteria _read_ Ichthyopterygia. - - 101, 11, from bottom, _for_ procælous _read_ procÅ“lous. - - 102, 15, _for_ procælous _read_ procÅ“lous. - - 111, 8, _for_ Sömmering _read_ Sömmerring. - -_For_ epipubic bone _read_ prepubic bone, pp. 61, 102, 109, 110, 111, -and pl. 8. - - - - - - INTRODUCTION - - - TO THE - - - OSTEOLOGY OF THE ORNITHOSAURIA FROM THE - CAMBRIDGE UPPER GREENSAND. - - -------------- - - - Materials. - - - -The Cambridge Upper Greensand has yielded to collectors bones which -illustrate nearly every part of the skeleton of the animals that are -commonly named Pterodactyles. Large collections have been acquired -for the Woodwardian Museum. A series of more than 500 bones have -been arranged to exemplify the osteology and organization of the -Ornithosauria in the area when the Cambridge Greensand was deposited. -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 relics. Another collection of nearly 400 bones -has been arranged, which displays in association, as they were found -entombed in the old Greensand sea-bed, the remains of the skeletons of -thirty-three animals of the Pterodactyle kind. The whole of the remains -from this formation hitherto gathered cannot be computed to have -pertained to fewer than 150 individuals, which indicate a new sub-class -of animals, two new genera and at least twenty-five new species. - -The bones were mostly of a paper or card-like thinness, and were -originally hollow like the thin bones of birds. In the jaws of other -animals, and in the sea, they were easily fractured, so that proximal -ends and distal ends and shafts and split bones abound, while perfect -bones are almost unknown. Even those bones like the carpals, which -almost retain their entirety, invariably show indications of having -been rolled on the sea-shore among the nodules of phosphate of lime -with which they now occur, in their angular margins being rounded, and -in the removal of slender processes. The rock in which these fossils -are found is a thin bed of chalky marl which is heavily charged with -dark-green grains of Glauconite, and is quarried largely, and entirely -dug away to be deprived of the dark-brown nodules of phosphate of lime -with which it is stored. In digging and in the subsequent washing, the -workmen, stimulated by an ample reward, pick out the fossils as they -are discovered. They are separated easily from the matrix of investing -marl, so that every aspect of each bone is seen, except for the -occasionally adherent oysters and the masses of phosphate of lime, with -which material the bones are also filled. Hence these remains afford -facilities for the study of the _joints_ such as no other specimens -have presented; and from their large size and comparatively great -numbers, render easy the labour of the student who seeks to contrast -them with the bones of other animals. - -The osteological collection has been formed without regard to species -or genera, and arranged to exhibit the structure and organization of -the tribe of animals. So far as possible each bone, as humerus, femur, -&c., has its variations of structures and form contrasted on a single -tablet. The series comprises the following bones: - - Fore-part of sternum. Coracoid (perfect). Scapula (nearly perfect). - Humerus (perfect). ?Radius (proximal end). Radius (distal end). ?Ulna - (proximal end). Ulna (distal end). Proximal carpal. Distal carpal. - Lateral carpal. Wing-metacarpal (proximal and distal ends). First - phalange (proximal and distal ends). Second phalange (proximal end). - Metacarpal or metatarsal (distal end). Claw phalange. Os innominatum - (parts of ilium, ischium, and pubis). Femur (perfect). ?Tibia - (proximal end). Atlas and axis. Cervical vertebræ. Dorsal vertebræ. - Sacrum and sacral vertebræ. Caudal vertebræ. Lower jaw (dentary and - articular ends). Premaxillary bones, &c. Teeth. Quadrate bone (distal - end with quadrato-jugal). Ethmoid with basi-sphenoid. Occipital and - parietal segments of skulls. Basi-occipital and basi-temporal. Cast - of brain-cavity. - -They are exhibited in Compartments _a_, _b_, _c_ of the Table-case of -Cabinet =J=. The letter =F= in a circle is placed against figured -specimens. - - - -History. - -The Cambridge Pterodactyles first attain prominence in scientific -literature in the year 1859. Professor Owen had figured (plate 32, fig. -6-8) fragments of bones in the Palæontographical Society's Monograph -for 1851; the distal end of a large ulna (fig. 6); the shaft of a -phalange of the wing-finger, probably the first (fig. 7); and the upper -portion of the shaft of a small humerus showing part of the radial -crest (fig. 8). Inadvertently the last specimen was referred to the -Lower Greensand. But although fragments of humerus of Pterodactyle and -vertebræ of Pterodactyloid animals have in the last few years been -gathered from the Potton Sands, those deposits were believed to be -barren of fossils when Prof. Owen wrote; and all the Pterodactyles yet -made known from near Cambridge were collected from the Cambridge Upper -Greensand. - -Among the earliest successful collectors were Mr James Carter, the -Rev. H. G. Day, St John's Coll.; Prof. G. D. Liveing, St John's Coll.; -the Rev. T. G. Bonney, St John's Coll.; and Mr Lucas Barrett, Trin. -Coll.; and the Rev. Prof. Sedgwick, Trin. Coll., on behalf of the -Woodwardian Museum. Mr Day and Mr Bonney both presented every specimen -from their cabinets which could enrich the University collection. And -in the last ten years the Woodwardian Museum has acquired, through the -skillful collecting of the Messrs Farren, the present materials. The -associated sets of bones were formed by William and Robert Farren, -who, obtaining the specimens from day to day as they were discovered, -were enabled to put together such parts of the skeleton as remained -together on the sea-bottom. These collections will hereafter be used -for the elucidation of species. They are the only materials which can -give the proportions of the Cambridge Ornithosaurians, and the contrast -of aspect which distinguished the living animals from those from other -rocks. - -The other collections of these fossils are those of Mr William Reed -and Mr J. F. Walker at York, the Museum of Practical Geology, and the -British Museum. - -The Woodwardian specimens as collected were placed in the hands of -Prof. Owen, and were first made known in the Professor's lectures on -reptiles and birds delivered at the Museum of Practical Geology in -1858. In that year Prof. Owen communicated to the British Association -for the Advancement of Science, and printed in their Report, the matter -of the memoir which was published with plates by the Palæontographical -Society in 1859. In this latter year Prof. Owen communicated to the -Royal Society an account of the vertebral column of Pterodactyles. In -1859 Prof. Owen also produced a classification of recent and fossil -reptiles at the meeting of the British Association, in which the -order Pterosauria appears with new characters--such as the pneumatic -structure of most of the bones--drawn from Cambridge specimens. In -1860 Prof. Owen produced another memoir on Pterodactyles, which was -published by the Palæontographical Society. A brief account of the -tribe appeared about the same time in the Professor's _Palæontology_. - -In these writings are descriptions of the various parts of the -vertebral column. Their procÅ“lian centra are described, and the -pneumatic foramina are noticed and supposed to have communicated -with air-cells. They are compared with birds, and distinguished from -birds; but although the order is classed with reptiles no contrast with -reptiles is made. Other bones described are a basi-occipital, and a -doubtful bone, then thought to be a frontal, but which is more like the -neural region of the sacrum. - -The sternum is compared with the sternum of the birds Apteryx and -Aptenodytes, is stated to be formed, in the main, on the Ornithic type, -and to possess distinct synovial articular cavities for the coracoids -such as only occur in birds. The inter-coracoid process of the sternum -is compared with that of Bats, Birds, and Crocodiles. - -The mechanism of the framework of the wings is said to be much -more bird-like than bat-like, the anchylosed scapula and coracoid -being remarkably similar to those of a bird of flight. The coracoid -is shorter and straighter in birds than in Pterodactyles, but no -comparisons are made with reptiles. - -The humerus is known only by the proximal end. It is said to conform -at its proximal end more with the Crocodilian than with the Avian -type, but to have the radial crest much more developed than in either -Crocodile or Bird. The bone is, however, chiefly compared with -birds, and is figured between corresponding bones of a Vulture and a -Crocodile. The pneumatic texture is said to be as well marked as in any -bird of flight. - -Of the carpus it is said, the Pterodactyle, in the complete separation -of the metacarpus from the antibrachium by two successive carpals -answering to the two rows, adheres more closely to the reptilian type -than to that of birds. But the row which was regarded as proximal is -the distal row, while the supposed distal row is proximal. - -The claw-phalange and distal end of the wing-metacarpal, the mandible, -teeth, and jaw are the other bones described, but their comparative -osteology is not discussed. In the Professor's account of a fragment of -a jaw it is said, "The evidence of the large and obviously pneumatic -vacuities now filled with matrix, and the demonstrable thin layer of -compact bone forming their outer wall, permit no reasonable doubt -as to the Pterosaurian nature of this fossil. All other parts of -the flying reptile being in proportion, it must have appeared with -outstretched pinions like the soaring Roc of Arabian romance, but with -the demoniacal features of the leathern wings with crooked claws, and -of the gaping mouth with threatening teeth, superinduced." - -When the specimens on which Prof. Owen had founded the foregoing views -of the osteology and classification of these animals were at length -returned to the Woodwardian Museum, it became a duty of the present -writer to arrange and name them. And in a Memoir on Pterodactyles which -was communicated to the Cambridge Philosophical Society and read March -7 and May 2 and 16, 1864, a position was claimed for them, distinct -from reptiles, as a separate sub-class of Sauropsida, nearly related to -birds. - -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 (Sauromia)," with enlarged drawings of the skull and some -of the other bones, in which the conclusions arrived at were that, -excepting the teeth, there is little in such parts of the head as are -preserved to distinguish the Cambridge Pterodactyles from birds; and -that the remainder of the skeleton gives a general support to the -inference from the skull. - -Papers were communicated to the Cambridge Philosophical Society -on February 17, 1868, on indications of Mammalian affinities in -Pterodactyles in the pelvis and femur, and February 22, 1869, on the -bird-like characters of the brain and metatarsus in the Pterodactyls -from the Cambridge Greensand. 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 Feb. 1865, and in -"An epitome of the evidence that Pterodactyles are not reptiles, but -a new sub-class of vertebrate animals allied to birds," in the same -magazine for May, 1866. - -In the meantime Prof. Owen's views have somewhat changed. In the first -volume of the _Comparative Anatomy and Physiology of the Vertebrata_ -(1866), the Pterosauria are classed as the highest group of reptiles, -and take rank above the Dinosauria. In the second volume of that work -(1866), occurs the following passage: - -"Derivatively the class of birds is most closely connected with the -Pterosaurian order of cold-blooded air-breathers. In equivalency it is -comparable rather with such a group than with the Reptilia in totality, -or with the Mammalia." - - -Organization. - -Nearly every writer on Pterodactyles, who has expressed any opinion -at all, has formed an estimate of his own of their organization. They -have been assigned to almost all possible positions in the vertebrate -province, by great anatomists who all had before them very similar -materials. An account of these views is given by von Meyer in his -monograph of the Pterodactyles of the Lithographic Slate. It will not -be necessary to discuss these conclusions here, 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 -specimens. In England they are classed with Reptilia, chiefly through -the influence of the discourse upon them given by Baron Cuvier in his -_Ossemens Fossiles_[A]. 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 reptiles. He -says,--"Ayant encore porté mon attention sur le petit os cylindrique -marqué _g_ (i.e. os quadratum) qui va du crâne à l'articulation des -mâchoires, je me crus muni de tout ce qui étoit nécessaire pour classer -ostéologiquement notre animal parmi les reptiles." The exact relations -of the quadrate bone are not seen in either Cuvier's or Goldfuss' or -von Meyer's figures of this Pterodactyle, the P. longirostris; but in -von Meyer's figures of P. crassirostris, P. longicollum, and P. Kochi -it appears to be a free bone articulated to the squamosal and petrosal -region of the skull and with the lower jaw. This is not the case with -either Chelonians or Crocodiles, which have the quadrate bone firmly -packed in the skull; nor is it paralleled even among those lizards -and serpents which have the bone as free; while, on the contrary, it -is characteristic of the whole class of birds. The form of the bone -is not more Lacertian than Avian, while its direct attachment to the -bone of the brain-case finds no parallel among lizards, but is exactly -paralleled in all birds. - -[Footnote A: Tome V. Part a, pp. 358, 383. Edition, 1814.] - -Cuvier then goes on to say, "Ce n'étoit pas non plus un oiseau, -quoiqu'il eût été rapporté aux oiseaux palmipèdes par un grand -naturaliste[B]." Which position he supports as follows:-- - -[Footnote B: Blumenbach.] - -(1) "Un oiseau auroit des côtes plus larges, et munies chacune d'une -apophyse récurrente[C]; son metatarse n'auroit formé qu'un seul os, -et n'auroit pas été composé d'autanut d'os qu'il a de doigts." These, -though they may not be characters which are those of birds, are -certainly not eminently reptilian. The elongated form of the tarsals -in birds is peculiar, but quite functional, as may be seen among the -Penguins, where, when the so-called tarso-metatarsal bone is no longer -erect, it becomes much shorter, and is nearly separated into three -distinct bones. The cretaceous Pterodactyles appear to have this bone -exactly like that of birds. - -[Footnote C: This shown in other specimens since figured, and in the -specimen from Stonesfield in the Oxford Museum.] - -(2) "Son aile n'auroit eu que trois divisions après l'avantbras, et non -pas cinq comme celle-ce." This is a difference, but a difference of -detail only, and not a reptilian character. The creatures have wings; -and no reptile known, from recent or fossil specimens, has wings. The -general plan of the wing, though very unlike, approximates to that of -a bird. Most birds have two phalanges in the long finger, though some -have three. One Pterodactyle is described as having only two phalanges -in the wing-finger, while most of the German specimens appear to have -four phalanges. In birds the longest finger appears to be the middle -one, while in Pterodactyles it is the innermost one. - -(3) "Son bassin auroit eu une toute autre étendue et sa queue -osseuse un toute autre forme; elle seroit élargie, et non pas grêle -et conique." The pelvis of Pterodactyle is not reptilian, and no -living reptile has a pelvis like it. It is not unlike the pelvis of -a Monotreme, but the ilium is more Avian. It resembles the pelvis -of Dicynodon. And the discovery of a long-tailed bird-like the -Archæopteryx shows that the tail is like that of old birds, even if -it also presents some analogy in form to that of certain reptiles and -mammals. - -(4) "Il n'y auroit pas eu de dents au bec; les dents des _harles_ ne -tiennent qu'à l'enveloppe cornée, et non à la charpente osseuse." This -is not a reptilian character. Among reptiles some tribes have teeth, -others want them; and among mammals some animals are without teeth, -though they are so characteristic of the class. It is an anomaly that -birds should all be toothless. And so, without citing the supposed -teeth of _Archæopteryx_, 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 them. - -(5) "Les vertèbres du cou auroient été plus nombreuses. Aucun -oiseau n'en a moins de neuf; les palmipèdes, en particulier, en ont -depuis douze jusqu'à vingt-trois, et l'on n'en voit ici que six ou -tout au plus sept." This is a variation of detail such as, had it -occurred among birds, would hardly have been deemed evidence of their -affinities. When the variation of the neck-vertebræ ranges from 23 to -9, the further reduction of the number to 7 becomes insignificant, and -does not show that the animal was a reptile. - -(6) "Au contraire, les vertèbres du dos l'auroient été beau-coup moins. -Il semble qu'il y en ait plus de vingt, et les oiseaux en ont de sept -à dix, ou tout au plus onze." This modification is obviously the -result of smaller development of the pelvic bones from front to back, -and hence of the small number of vertebræ in the sacrum. It does not -support the reference of Pterodactyles to the class of reptiles. - -Speaking of the teeth, it is said, "Elles sont toutes simples, -coniques, et à peu près semblables entre elles comme dans les -crocodiles, les monitors, et d'autres lézards." The teeth of -Pterodactyles are (in the skull) for the most part in the premaxillary -bones, in which it is so characteristic for the teeth of animals to, be -merely conical and simple. Therefore it would have been difficult to -imagine the teeth to have been anything but what they are, whatever the -affinities of the Pterodactyle might be. - -It is remarked, "La longueur du cou est proportionée à celle de la -téte. On y voit cinq vertèbres grandes et prismatiques comme celles des -oiseaux à long cou, et une plus petite se montre à chaque extrémité." -This adds nothing to the evidence for its reptilian character. - -"Ce qui est le plus fait pour étonner, c'est que cette longue téte -et ce long cou soient portés sur un si petit corps; les oiseaux -seuls offrent de semblable proportions, et sans doute c'est, avec la -longueur du grand doigt, ce qui avoit determiné quelques naturalistes -à rapporter notre animal à cette classe." Nor is this evidence that -the animal was a reptile. And in many minor matters Cuvier is careful -to show how their modifications resemble those of birds; and when -this is not so, birds are the only animals from which he finds them -varying. And the few suggestions which are thrown out respecting their -affinities with lizards are upon points which are also common to birds. - -Thus what Cuvier did was to distinguish these animals from birds, and -incidentally to show that their organization was a modification of -that of the Avian class. And the legitimate inference would have been -that their systematic place was near the birds, and not that they were -reptiles. - -But in Germany Cuvier's views on Pterodactyles have by no means been -submissively received; and great anatomists, since he wrote, have -propounded and defended views as various as those of the anatomists -who preceded him, and with no less confidence in the results of their -science. In the brief space at my command it would be impossible to -do justice to the works of this array of philosophers, 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 Jura_. They form a commentary on the -casts of Solenhofen Pterodactyles contained in the Woodwardian Museum. - - -Sömmerring - -regarded the Pterodactyle as an unknown kind of bat, and thought that -Cuvier was misled by Collini's imperfect description. He believed that -he found in them different kinds of teeth as in mammals; and regarded -them as differing from bats chiefly in having larger eye-holes, a -longer neck, four fingers and four toes, a longer metatarsus, and in -having but one elongated finger; and found the closest analogue of the -fingers in Pteropus marginatus of Bengal. And although inclined to -place the Pterodactyle between Pteropus and Galeopithecus, he suspects -from the bird-like characters of the head and feet that its true place -is intermediate between mammals and birds. - - -Oken[D]. - -[Footnote D: _Isis_, 1818, p. 551.] - -Oken reasoned carefully so far as his materials went. He dwells much -on the analogy of the wing to that of a bat, and seems to suspect that -the marsupial bones would hereafter be found; and, excepting the head, -finds that the other parts of the skeleton have their corresponding -bones among mammals. - -Afterwards, when he saw the specimens at Munich, he was so much struck -at finding the quadrate bone of Lacertian form, though Sömmerring -could not detect it even with a microscope, that he is shaken in his -mammalian faith, and inclines to consider the animal a reptile. - - -Wagler[E]. - -[Footnote E: _System der Amphibien_, 1830, p. 75.] - -Wagler was impressed with the resemblance of the jaws and the rounded -back part of the skull to those of Dolphins, and so far as the head -went conceives it to have had nothing in common with Lizards. He -recognizes mammalian characters in the pelvis and sternum, and fails, -like Sömmerring, to detect a quadrate bone, and finds the sum of the -characters like those of other extinct animals, such as Ichthyosaurus -and Plesiosaurus, suggesting for it a position between mammals and -birds. He supposed it unable to fly, that it never left the water, -but swam about on the surface like a swan, and sought its food on -the sea-bottom. He imagined the long arms to have been used after -the fashion of turtles and penguins to row the body along; while to -the claws he attributes the function of holding the females in the -generative process. - - -Goldfuss[F]. - -[Footnote F: _Nova Acta Acad. Leopold._, 1831, Vol. XV. Pt. I. p. 103.] - -sees in Pterodactyle an indication of the course that nature took in -changing the reptilian organization to that of birds and mammals. The -less important organs, those of motion, assimilate partly to those -of the bird and partly to those of the bats, but always preserve -the fundament reptile type and reptile number of bones. The skull, -fluctuating in character between the monitor and crocodile, hides its -reptile nature under the outer form of the bird, but retains the teeth. -To change the skull into a bird's skull it would only be necessary that -a few separate elements should be blended together, and that a few -peculiar bones should be removed. The length of the neck, varying only -in a few species, is a deviation from the reptile type, and indicates -an approximation to the structure of 'the bird; but the number of -the vertebræ remains constant notwithstanding the increased length. -The fundamental plan of the crocodile may be recognised in all the -important parts of the vertebræ. The body of the reptile, to be enabled -to fly, would need a larger breast and a stronger structure of the -fore-limbs. The shoulder-blade of the reptile, with its extremities -forming the glenoid cavity, is necessarily smaller and prolonged -backward, and altered to resemble that of a bird. The scapula only -formed the back part of the glenoid cavity, but it is thick and strong, -suggesting an affinity with the bats. - -The breast-bone, in the form of a shield, is changing into that of a -bird; as are the ribs, which are attached in a peculiar way to the -vertebral column. It is really the strong sternum of the Chameleon, -with moveable dorsal vertebræ. The whole chest is supported by the -peculiar continuation of the wings of the pubic bones (Schambein). -The ischiac and pubic bones resemble those of the Chameleon, but the -ilium runs a little down, like that of a bird, and is only slightly -connected with two sacral vertebræ, as in reptiles, prolonging itself -a little upward and forward, as in mammals. The wings of the pubic -bones exist in the Turtle and Monitor, but of small extent; they are -also represented in the mammals by the upward development of the pubic -bones in those families, genera, and species, in which nature has -indicated by variety of shape, or peculiarities of development, or by -affinities with reptiles, quite a new type and capacity for variation -within certain limits, which is especially the case with certain -Rodents and Opossums, and Monotremes. It would not be astonishing to -find in Pterodactyles the marsupial bones. And indeed the Pterodactylus -crassirostris has a small tongue-shaped bone, probably belonging to the -pelvis. The less important part of the skeleton, the tail, is formed -precisely as in mammals, and is identical with that of the bats. Both -the thigh and shin are mammalian, and only the foot retains the same -number of parts as in reptiles. - -This animal was enabled by means of the pelvic bones and the long -hind-legs to sit like the squirrels. - -We should regard this position as natural but for the long wing-finger -hanging far down the sides. If it were to creep along it would have -the same difficulties as a bat, and the length and weight of the -head, as well as the proportional weakness of the bind limb, make it -improbable that they progressed by leaping. These animals made use of -their claws only to hang on to rocks and trees and to climb up steep -cliffs. They could fly with their wings, and keep themselves aloft in -order to catch insects or sea animals. 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 it. By means of -their long neck, which they usually bore curved backward in order to -keep their balance, they could stretch out their head to their prey -and change their centre of gravity, and so fly in different positions. -The fundamental type of the Crocodile and Monitor leads us to suspect -that they had a skin covered with scales. The approximation to the -shape of the Bird makes it probable that they were feathered. And the -whole outline, similar to that of the Bat, leads to the supposition -that they were covered with hair, like the Monotremes. Goldfuss thinks -he has got a clear insight into the covering of the body and the whole -condition of the wing in examining the Pt. crassirostris. And the soft -state of the stone near the bones he attributes to the presence of -the soft parts of the animal; 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[G]. And on the principal slab he finds -evidence that the Pterodactyle had a mane on the neck like a horse. -The tufts on the counter slab have some similarity with the feathers -of the ostrich. Some very tender impressions on both plates still more -resemble feathers. He recognizes the outline and faint diverging rays -of a bird's feather, but never sees a strong quill. The microscope, -instead of making the image clearer, makes it, on the contrary, vanish, -because then the rough parts become prominent. Also on the slab which -contains the Pterodactylus medius[H], are seen numerous lines and -fibres diverging like a bird's feathers. And on the upper part of the -belly is the appearance of a scanty texture of hairs and feathers. The -visible marks of two cylinders of the thickness of a quill, made of -thin substance and filled with limestone, he would regard as quills if -there were clearer marks of their feathers to be seen. As a note upon -this von Meyer says, after examining the slabs, that the particles -considered by Goldfuss to be hairs and feathers rest upon appearances -not only to be seen in the vicinity of Pterodactyles, but which occur -upon many other kinds of petrifactions that have nothing in common with -the Pterodactyle; and that the roughnesses of the slab have nothing to -do with the folds of the wing or the muscles. - -[Footnote G: This is represented in Pl. 7, 8 of his memoir, _loc. cit._] - -[Footnote H: Pl. 6, _Nova Afta Acad. Leopold_, Vol. XV. Pt. 1.] - - -Wagner[I] - -[Footnote I: _Abhandl. Bayerischen Acad._ 1852, Vol. VI.] - -is so convinced that the Pterodactyles are Amphibians approximating -to the Saurians, that he does not think it necessary to go into -any controversy in the matter; but he acknowledges that their -forms sometimes present peculiarities of bird and mammal. The head -especially shows a blending of the bird and reptile types. Its outline, -particularly when seen from above, is that of a long-beaked water-bird. -And the long interval between the nose-holes and the tip of the jaw, -and the peculiar fact of a hole between the nose and eye-holes, and -the want of the continuation of the coronoid of the lower jaw, rather -resemble a water-bird than a Saurian. But the presence and the form -of the teeth show it to be a Saurian; and not only the teeth, but the -configuration of the whole back part of the skull, reproduces the type -of the Monitor. The sclerotic circle is a peculiar mark of birds and -saurians. Very peculiar, however, is the extremely short back part -of the skull; and the articulation of the lower jaw, stretched far -forward and united just under the middle of the eye-hole. The more -or less long neck, which may assume the form of an S, deviates very -much from the short stiff neck of reptiles, and is quite bird-like, -the neck-vertebræ of which those of the Pterodactyle closely resemble -in shape; while their constant number of seven reminds us of mammals -and crocodiles. The neck has the same flexibility as in a bird. The -short and weak trunk-vertebræ are in such disproportion to the length -and strength of the neck-vertebræ as is never met with even in the -birds and mammals which have the longest necks. The trunk-vertebræ -are completely separated from each other, and may be divided into -dorsal, lumbar, and sacral vertebræ. The transverse processes of the -back-vertebræ are notched out like those of the crocodile. The tail -is short in most species, and this is a deviation from the type of -the Saurians, and an approximation to birds and to many mammals. But -there are some kinds with very long tails, as is the case with mammals -and usually with Saurians. But the vertebræ of these long-tailed -Pterodactyles deviate very much from those of Saurians. And while -the Saurian vertebræ are provided with long transverse processes and -upper and lower spinous-processes (Dorn-Fortsätzen), they seem in -the Pterodactyle to be almost devoid of processes and resemble those -of mammals, on the tails of which these processes soon disappear. -In a certain point of view we could say of the vertebral column of -the Pterodactyle, that it has borrowed the neck from the bird, the -trunk from the reptile, and the tail from the mammal. The ribs are -connected to the transverse processes as in crocodiles, except with the -atlas and axis. Quite in the type of the Saurians are the abdominal -ribs, which are wanting to all birds and mammals, but often occur in -the Lacertian order. The structure of the shoulder and breast-bone -separate the Pterodactyle from the mammal, these parts being formed -after the type of the Birds and Saurians, the characters of which are -blended together. The small and elongated shoulder-blade, like the -coracoid bone, belongs to the type of the bird rather than to that -of the Saurians, of which, in reference to the last-named bone, only -crocodiles have a similar one. The breast-bone, by its large expansion, -points to the crocodiles, but at the same time, by the want of the -keel, points to the ostrich-like birds, save that it is proportionally -larger and wider than in these. The Pterodactyle, in common with the -crocodile, wants the patella. The pelvis is formed on the type of the -Saurians, although the ilium, by length and form, points somewhat to -the mammals. The length and delicate form of the long bones of the -limb, as well as the larger development of the fore-arm than of the -upper-arm, and larger development of the lower thigh than of the upper -thigh, and the thinness and elegance and shortness of the ?fibula -(Wadenbein) have the characters of birds. The length of the middle hand -[metacarpals] resembles that of birds, but its form in Pterodactyle -is conformable to that of mammals. The first three fingers have the -form and condition of the phalanges of lizards. The phalanges form the -series 2, 3, and 4. The fourth, or air-finger, on the contrary, is -of a peculiar type, of which no analogue is found in other animals, -unless a somewhat similar arrangement be accredited to the bats. It -is of enormous length, composed of four parts and without a claw. -The hind-leg is, in proportion to the fore-leg, weak, and in general -does not take the bird-form, but that of a Saurian. It has five toes, -with unusual arrangement of the phalanges into the series 1, 5, 4, -3, 2. One toe has no nail, and the others have claws weaker than -those of the hand. It can hardly be supposed that the animal lived -in the water. All Saurians that live either in the water or on land -are short-legged; it is the same with the swimming birds. But the -Pterodactyle has its hind-legs as long as a land or air-bird; and as in -these, the shin especially exceeds the length of the thigh. At the same -time the toes, when they are in their natural position, were so close -together that we may suppose the animal not to have been web-footed. -The great development of the hand, by means of the long middle hand -and especially of the enormous length of the air-finger, makes it -probable that it was the chief organ of flight, as in birds and bats; -also deviating in a peculiar manner from both these types, the long -air-finger served to expand the wing-membrane, which extended from the -upper part of the finger to the trunk, and which in all probability -did not touch the hind-legs. This we infer from the circumstance that -the animal, in a position with the organs of flight folded up, was -not supported like the bat on its four feet, but stood upright on its -hind-legs like a bird. Such a position presumes the same freedom in -moving the hind extremities as with birds; 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 bird. 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 balance, the neck being able to -take a sigmoid curve like that of a bird. - -Wagner concludes: "By these means we have recognised in the -Pterodactyle a Saurian, but of a habitude which greatly removes him -from all others of his kind, and approximates him to birds. Excepting -in ability to fly, he has nothing in common with the birds. The opinion -'that the animal is half crocodile half monitor disguised as a bird, -but intending to be a bird,' is therefore not only a paradox but also -false. With more truth, but less phantasy, we could say that the -Pterodactyle was a Saurian in transition to the Birds." - - -Quenstedt[J]. - -[Footnote J: _Ueber Pterodactylus Suevicus._ Tubingen 1855. - -In the long thigh, with the long neck, Quenstedt sees evidence that the -animal was able to walk upright, being probably still more upright than -birds, since the great disproportion between the neck on the one hand, -and the thigh on the other, could not have allowed a more appropriate -position. At the same time he makes a question, Did it go on four feet? -But a little later, in his book, _Sonst und Jetzt_, 1856, he gives -a sketch of the animal resting on its four legs; and remarks, "The -position upon four feet is however hypothetical, but is probable. It -had its wings folded back. The slightly curved and thin bones of the -middle hand probably served to support the flying-membrane, and had -therefore the same function as the spur-bone in the bats." Finally, he -says in his book, _der Jura_, p. 813, "Perhaps this animal walked from -time to time on four legs, being then supported by the fore-end of the -metatarsal bone."] - - -Burmeister[K]. - -[Footnote K: _Beleuchtung uniger Pterodactylus arten._ 1855.] - -entirely rejects Quenstedt's opinions with regard to their upright -position. He makes the following remarks: 'The animal walked on the -free fore-toes and bore the wings like a bat, though with the body not -in an upright position like a bird, but four-footed. The hind-foot is -much too small for such an upright position, and the fore-foot much too -strongly developed. I therefore believe that the Pterodactyle could -much better have walked four-footed than a bat, because it possessed so -much better developed fore-feet.' In the length of the tibia Burmeister -sees no reason for the upright position, but, as he says, only a means -for the wide expansion of the flying-membrane;--and an endeavour in -walking on four feet to bring the leg into the necessary harmony with -the arm, which is so much elongated with the flat-hand. - - -Hermann von Meyer[L]. - -[Footnote L: _Fauna der Vorwelt. Reptilien aus dem Lithographischen -schiefer._ Frankfurt am Main. 1859. pp. 15-23.] - -The skull of the Pterodactyle can only be compared with those of -birds and lizards. The form is essentially Avian, and the sutures are -indistinct or obliterated as in birds, while in reptiles they are -persistent The temporal bone enters into the formation of the reservoir -for the brain, which is eminently characteristic of birds and quite -different from anything found in lizards. The snout resembles a bird in -being chiefly formed by the intermaxillary bone, which bounds the front -of the anterior nares; and, as in birds, the bone extends backward -between the eye-cavities to the frontal bone. The corresponding -intermaxillary ridge of the Monitor is of less extent. - -The frontal-bone forms the highest part of the skull, and is similar -to that of birds. The principal frontal is double, and forms the upper -and hind part of the cavity for the eye, and covered the greater part -of the large brain, composed of two hemispheres, in which Oken long -ago saw a similarity to the higher animals. The arched form of the -back part of the skull is bird-like. The double parietal adjoins the -principal frontal, and is conditioned like the parietal in birds. The -supra-occipital is single as in birds, expanded, and forms the part of -the skull which extends furthest back. From the form of the back part -of the skull it may be concluded that the foramen magnum was situated -as in birds, and that the head and neck were moved as in birds, and not -as in reptiles and mammals. - -The temporal bone rests upon the parietal and frontal, and forms much -of the temporal foss. Its anterior border does not appear to enter -into the margin of the orbital cavity as in birds, but seems to be -replaced by the post-frontal, which resembles that of the Chameleon. -Its hindmost branch, which can hardly be supposed to be the jugal, -forms the outer boundary of the temporal foss by uniting with a process -which is probably part of the mastoid. A similar closing of the cavity -for the temporal muscles is also to be found in birds. The jugal -and maxillary do not follow the bird type. The jugal consists of a -single bone which forms the greater part of the anterior and inferior -boundary of the cavity of the eye, which is surrounded with bones, as -in Dragons and Iguana. In those birds in which the cavity of the eye is -surrounded with bones the jugal does not enter into it. As in lizards, -at its upper end the jugal is commonly connected with the lachrymal, -which bone is like that of a bird. A bone, which appears to be the -pre-frontal, enters into the back of the nasal aperture. - -The nostril is double and often of large size. - -The perforation in the skull between the orbit and nares is bird-like. - -The quadrate bone is not quadratic as in birds, but cylindrical and -shaft-like, as in the Chameleon. The articulation of the quadrate with -the lower jaw is placed further forward than in birds and reptiles. The -lower jaw, but for the teeth, has great similarity with that of a bird. -Among reptiles its nearest resemblance is with Chameleons and Turtles. -The hyoid is more bird-like than reptile-like. - -_Ribs and vertebræ._ - -It is uncertain whether the Pterodactyle had lumbar vertebræ. If they -are wanting, therein the animals resemble birds, of which we are -reminded in the short and stiff back and moveable neck. Pterodactyles -possess a smaller number of neck-vertebræ and a larger number of -back-vertebræ than birds. The long neck-vertebræ are paralleled by -those of water-birds, by the Giraffe, the Camel, Protosaurus and -Tanystrophæus. There are 7 cervical vertebræ, the 1st very short, 2nd -not longer, but rather shorter than those which follow. There are in -Pterodactyles from 12 to 16 dorsal vertebræ, while birds have never -more than 11. It is not certain whether all Pterodactyles have an os -sacrum; most have it, and therein resemble Mammals, Birds, and some -fossil Saurians. In Pterodactylus dubius and P. grandipelvis and P. -Kochi there are 5 or 6 vertebræ in the sacrum. In birds the sacral -vertebræ vary from 5 to 22; in bats the number is from 5 to 6. - -The short tails of Pterodactyles are more like those of mammals than -birds; they include from 10 to 15 tail-vertebræ. In birds there are -from 6 to 10 tail-vertebræ. Rhamphorhynchus has 38-40 tail-vertebræ, -secured between thread-bones like those in the tail of rats. - -The dorsal ribs are reptile-like. In herbivorous mammals and birds -they are broader. A few species have the first pair of ribs large. The -abdominal ribs belong neither to birds nor mammals, but are reptilian. -In Rhamphorhynchus Gemmingi there are 6 pairs of sternal ribs. - - -_The sternum_ - -is bird-like, somewhat resembling lizards. It consists of a simple -flat bone, but without the keel of a bird's sternum. It is relatively -smaller than in birds, is broader than long, and therefore comparable -with Struthious birds. They were not able flyers, since the part to -which the muscles for flight should be affixed is wanting. And for -the same reason they could not have been wandering animals. But Moles -possess a keel on the breast-bone, which therefore is no evidence -of flight. And in swimming-birds which do not fly the keel is much -developed; and in swimming-birds the sternum is also long, so that -neither length nor keel prove flight. So far as the evidence from the -sternum goes, they were neither water-birds, nor diggers, but denizens -of the air. In Rhamphorhynchus Gemmingi, besides the usual breast-bone, -there is a plate with breast-ribs uniting the sternum with the dorsal -ribs; they are cartilaginous, or horny, as in birds. - - -_The scapula and coracoid_ - -present the closest resemblance with those of a bird, and only deviate -in the coracoid not being inserted in the breast-bone in the manner -of birds[M]. It at first seemed that Rhamphorhynchus differed from -Pterodactyle in having the scapula and coracoid anchylosed. In R. -Gemmingi the bones are either separated or only slightly united. - -[Footnote M: See however Pl. 1 and 2 of this memoir.] - -Oken and Goldfuss thought that the scapula consists of an upper and -under part, as in lizards. Von Meyer sees nothing of the kind. - - -_The humerus_ - -presents no striking similarity with birds, and differs from bats. - - -_The carpus_ - -is more reptile-like. It consists of two rows of small bones. In birds -there is one row made up of two bones. - - -_The pteroid bone._ - -Von Meyer regards it as having supported the wing-membrane in flight. -There has been a good deal of difference of opinion about it, some -thinking it, with Quenstedt, an ossified tendon; others, like Wagner -and Burmeister, regarding it as an essential part of the Pterodactyle -skeleton. Von Meyer regards its extent as indicating the extent of the -wing-membrane. See p. 42. - - -_Metacarpus._ - -In length the metacarpus resembles that of the Ruminants, in which -however it consists of but one bone; while in Pterodactyles there is -a separate bone for each of the four fingers; they are closely united -together without being blended. In some Pterodactyles the metacarpals -of the short fingers are as fine as hairs, so that it is impossible -that they should have articular facets on the carpus. In Ornithopterus -the metacarpus has some resemblance with that of the bird, but the -articulation with the phalanges of the finger for flight is stiff. In -Pterodactylus and Rhamphorhynchus there is a free articulation. - -Burmeister remarks that the chief articulation of the wing in bats is -with the carpus, while in Pterodactyle the articulation is with the end -of the metacarpus. - - -_The hand._ - -Von Meyer finds four fingers. It was formerly supposed that the order -of the phalanges was 2, 3, 4, 4, but in the fly-finger this is not the -case, Ornithopterus having but two. The number of joints in the other -fingers is quite as irregular. - -In Pt. longicollum the thumb consists of but one joint. - - -_The Ilium_ - -is more mammalian and avian than reptilian. - - -_Pubis._ - -The pubis appears to have been excluded from the glenoid cavity, as -in Crocodiles. It is more mammal-like than bird-like, and is to be -compared with the marsupial bones. - - -_The femur._ - -In certain Pterodactyles the proximal condyle of the femur resembles -birds; but in other Pterodactyles the bone is more mammal-like in its -straightness, and development of the upper condyle, and in the presence -of a trochanter. - - -_The tibia and fibula_ - -may be compared, from their great length, with birds and flying -vertebrate animals. - -The fibula is style-shaped, like that of a bird, the lower part being -wanting; while in bats the upper part is wanting. - - -_The tarsus,_ - -of two rows, is best compared with that of reptiles. The number of -constituent bones has not been definitely determined. - -_The metatarsus_ - -shows a certain return from the bird type to that of reptiles. - - -_Foot._ - -Von Meyer never finds more than four toes, and sometimes a stump of a -fifth. As a whole, the foot is Saurian-like. It differs from lizards in -the number of toes, and approximates to Crocodiles. In Pterodactylus -longirostris the formula of the toes is 2, 3, 4, 5, with a stump of two -joints;--like lizards, if we abstract the outer toe; and like birds -with four toes; but they are liable to variations. - -In Pterodactylus scolopaciceps and P. Kochi the formula is 2, 3, 3, -4 joints. In Winkler's specimen of P. Kochi there is also a stump of -three joints. - -In Pterodactylus micronyx the formula is 2, 3, 3, 3, and a stump of two -joints. In P. longicollum the number appears to be different from all -the foregoing. - -The stump was attached to the side of the outer toe. Wagner, in P. -Kochi, supposed it to be on the inner side, and so gave a reverse -arrangement to the toes. The stump may be compared with that of some -Chelonians, in which it is not furnished with a claw. - -There is a difference from birds in the claws being much less -developed. It has a true reptile foot. In bats the toes are of equal -length. Von Meyer thinks the hind-legs did not enable it to walk on the -land. - -In some Pterodactyles the flying-membrane is faintly seen. The presence -of feathers might be inferred from there being but one finger for -flighty as in birds; but the function of feathers is subserved by the -long and stiff finger. If it had been covered with scales, as was -supposed by Cuvier, some traces of them would be found. The skin was -probably naked, and had no connection with the hind-legs as it has in -bats; in this respect resembling birds. - -The condition of the several parts of the skeleton completely proves -that the Pterodactyle was a reptile. Its head, neck, shoulder, and -back, resemble a bird; while there are, on the other hand, some -striking resemblances with the reptile in the pelvis, tail, and -articular parts of the limbs. Sometimes the characters of the two -classes run side by side, as in the skull, the fore-limbs, and -especially in the hind-limbs, where the shin of a Bird is connected -with the foot of a Saurian. The parts in which it corresponds with -birds show that Pterodactyles also were flying animals. That we should -be entitled to conclude, from the hollow state of the bones, that they -belonged to flying animals, is sufficiently proved by Blumenbach, -Buckland, Mantell, Owen having mistaken them for bones of birds. - -The most absolute proof that it was a flying animal is the pneumatic -character of its bones. This condition was discerned by me in some -Pterodactyle bones from the Lias of Franken (_Jahrb. für Mineral_, -1837, p. 316), and was afterwards established by Owen in the -Pterodactyles from the Chalk of England. This structure was previously -only known in birds. And the supposition readily follows that in the -respiratory process there was some similarity between the Pterodactyle -and the Birds. They have the proportions of upper-arm and fore-arm -which characterize birds of great flight, the humerus short and the -fore-arm long; hence it may be presumed that Pterodactyles could fly -well. From the absence and presence of the bony sclerotic ring in the -eye, it may be supposed that the Pterodactyles were active in the -day-time, while Rhamphorhynchus was nocturnal. - -After this statement von Meyer gives a discursive summary, in which his -views of the classification of reptiles in general and of Pterodactyles -in particular are epitomized. And then goes on to combat the views of -people who have departed from his classification and attempted to set -up classifications of their own; and cites a number of authors who, -labouring at the vertebrata, have endeavoured to find a resting-place -in their systems for the Pterodactyle. But the chief thing we learn of -von Meyer's own views is, that in 1830 he published a classification of -extinct Saurians, dividing them into those with limbs like the larger -and heavier land-mammals, those with fin-like limbs, and those with a -flying-finger. Which divisions have been widely adopted, though authors -have sometimes given them other names than those by which they were -first made known. - -Von Meyer has freely stated the facts about the Pterodactyle, and draws -the conclusion that the animal was a reptile; but how such a conclusion -was obtained from such facts is a matter on which his pages are silent. -One seems to hear the chirrup of the bird in almost every paragraph. -The head is in the main a bird's head; the pectoral girdle and the -sternal ribs are those of a bird; and very few are the structures in -which some reminder of the bird is not present; and in their bones he -discovered the pneumatic characteristic and inferred, for the animals -bird-like lungs. How, then, comes it that the Pterodactyle is a -reptile? We can only suppose the answer to be, Because if the head and -pectoral girdle and other bones had been reptilian it would have been a -bird. - - * * * * * - -In the views here epitomized it is difficult always to make out the -logical foundations of the conclusions arrived at. Sometimes they have -no foundations, 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 animals. In -now stating my own views I shall avail myself of the example of some -previous writers, and attempt to investigate the Pterodactyle as though -they had not written. And then, having placed before him all the -theories that are known, the reader will be able to choose the theory -that pleases him best, if indeed he needs one. - -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 classification. In palæontology, where the types are -more generalized than are living forms, it must always be difficult to -reason from the known to the unknown. The known is always more or less -incomparable with the unknown; 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 animal, in which -the structures formerly were united, the combined organizations of -the living animals in which they are now found. 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 belongs, and are entirely to be attributed to the -function which the necessities or organization of the animal caused -its structures to subserve. Inductive thought may sometimes discover -function from structure, but never makes more than an approximate -guess when it endeavours to determine fundamental organization from -osseous structures which are not fundamental. And before a naturalist -can say, since an animal has for instance a tail like a mammal that in -so far it must be affiliated to the mammalia, he must have determined -why the mammalian tail has its peculiar characters, and whether it is -compatible with any other common plan of organization. And perhaps it -might with equal reason be considered reptilian. - -Therefore I prefer at firsts instead of reasoning from the details -of structure, to adopt the _à priori_ method, and ask, not what the -Pterodactyle is like in its several bones, but what common plan it had -whereon its hard structures were necessarily moulded. For I imagine, if -it can be determined what the nervous and respiratory and circulatory -structures of the Pterodactyle were, it becomes a secondary matter to -know whether the phalanges are like a lizard's, or the pelvis like that -of a mammal. If the animal is asserted to be a mammal, a reptile, or a -bird, we ought to be able to adduce evidence that it had the soft parts -which are deemed distinctive of the selected class. This no one has -done or attempted to do. - -Hereafter it will be necessary to describe the Pterodactyle's brain. - -There is no organ more distinctive between hot-blooded animals on the -one hand, and cold-blooded animals on the other, than the brain. In -the cold-blooded groups, or those in which respiration is feeble and -circulation imperfect, that is to say, in existing fishes, amphibians, -and reptiles, the parts of the brain are arranged one behind another, -so that when looked upon from above, a portion called the optic lobes -intervenes between the anterior masses called the cerebrum and the -posterior mass called the cerebellum. In the hot-blooded groups, or -those with an enormous extent of lung-surface for oxidation of the -blood and a four-celled heart for its rapid circulation, that is to -say, in birds and mammals, the front part of the brain called the -cerebrum is immensely developed in proportion to the other parts, -and abuts against the cerebellum and more or less completely covers -the optic lobes, which in birds are squeezed out to the sides. The -Pterodactyle brain is of this latter kind. And it being taken as a -postulate that this kind of brain is the product of the organization -which produces hot blood, it follows that the Pterodactyle was a -hot-blooded animal. - -Again, the Pterodactyle has perforations for pneumatic cells in many of -the bones. - -There is no structure in the animal kingdom more distinctive of a -Class of animals than air-cells perforating the limb-bones. They are -connected with a peculiar kind of lung and heart--those of the bird; -for in this Class the bronchial tubes open on the outer surface of -the lungs into air-cells, which are prolonged through the body into -the bones. They follow the blood-vessels, and are most developed in -the part of the body most used. In some lizards, as the Chameleon, -the sack-like lung at its distal termination is as simple as the -air-cells of a bird; but those air-cells are not comparable with the -bird's air-cells, since they are not prolongations of the bronchial -tubes through the walls of the lungs. And it cannot be inferred that -a reptile with wings would develop air-cells like those of a bird: -in the first place, because those mammals which have wings do not -develop air-cells; and, in the second place, because there is nothing -in existing nature to lead any one to think that reptiles might have -wings. The mammalian lung is better comparable to that of a bird than -is the Chameleon lung, and therefore the air-cell structure might -with better reason have been anticipated to occur in the Chiroptera -than in a Lizard-ally, if it were dependent on the development of -wings. Moreover, among Struthious birds the legs have more of the -air-cell prolongations than the wings. Therefore, being a peculiar -Avian structure which only exists in association with the Avian heart -and lung, it follows that because the Pterodactyle had the pneumatic -foramina it also had the structures of which they are the evidence, -viz. lung and heart formed on the bird plan. - -Thus Pterodactyles have a nervous system of the bird type. That kind of -brain only exists in association with a four-celled heart and hot blood. - -They have a respiratory organization which is only met with among birds. - -With that respiratory apparatus is always associated a four-celled -heart and hot blood, which it would necessarily produce. - -And with that respiratory organization is always associated a brain of -the type that the Pterodactyle is found to possess. - -_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 birds._ - -This proposition will be incidentally proved in the following memoir, -in which it will be seen that with such a common plan, is associated a -diversity of details sufficient to demonstrate that these animals are -not birds, but constitute a new group of vertebrata of equal value with -the birds--the sub-class, Ornithosauria. - - - - - OSTEOLOGICAL COLLECTION - - - ILLUSTRATIVE OF THE MODIFICATIONS OF THE - ORNITHOSAURIA (OR PTERODACTYLES) IN THE - CAMBRIDGE UPPER GREENSAND. - - - Pectoral Girdle. - - STERNUM. - - Pl. 1, fig. 1. - - Case. Comp. Tablet. - =J= _a_ 1 - -The Sternum is the key to the bony apparatus supporting the anterior -limbs. In the Pterodactyles from the Cambridge Greensand it has been -well figured and described by Professor Owen, who enunciated its -resemblance to the sternum of birds. The sternum in Pterodactyles from -the Lithographic Slate, shows its proportional size to the body. The -examples found in the Cambridge Greensand have as yet shown no evidence -of a composite character like that attributed to Rhamphorhynchus -Gemmingi. - -The sternum consists of an expanded symmetrical shield having its -lateral halves, which are inclined to each other at a large angle -(about 150°), contracted superiorly, behind and immediately below the -synovial cavities for the coracoids. The vertical angular ridge in -which the lateral portions of the sternum unite becomes elevated as it -is followed anteriorly, into a strong keel. This keel or interpectoral -process is highest in front of the articulations for the coracoids; but -the degree of elevation varies with the species. It is prolonged upward -and in front of the coracoids for some distance, becoming very massive, -and the prolonged mass which is flattened from side to side, reaches -laterally to the outer margins of the coracoid articulations, and on -the visceral side a little between and over them. The anterior crest of -the keel shows the attachment of powerful muscles. - -Professor Owen has observed that only in birds are distinct synovial -cavities provided for the coracoids, and that no reptile has a -sternum showing characters like those seen in the Pterodactyle. These -coracoid cavities are placed as in birds, close together, behind the -_manubrium_, which forms the hindermost part of the keel. They are -convex transversely, concave from front to back as in birds, and -look upward at an angle of 35°, their main direction being outward -and a little backward. Professor Owen recognises the function of the -shield-shaped sternum in relation to the mechanism of respiration on -the one hand, and on the other hand, for the attachment of pectoral -muscles of great bulk and strength. - -As is well known, the muscles of the breast in most birds consist -chiefly of the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd pectoral muscles, and the -coraco-brachialis. - -The peculiar form of the bird's sternum appears to be due to the -vertical development of the second pectoral muscle, since when the 1st -and 3rd muscles are dissected off, the appearance presented nearly -resembles that of the sternum in Pterodactyles. There can however be -no doubt but that the third pectoral muscle, which in most birds is -but feebly developed, attained a far greater bulk in the Pterodactyle, -because there is evidence of its powerful insertion in the distal -anterior face of the coracoid, 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 attached. The peculiar lateral emargination -of the sternum appears to be due to the anterior sternal termination of -this muscle, caused by the outward direction of the coracoid bone. - -Since the coracoids were developed outward and backward so much more -than in birds, it would happen, from the apparent different direction -of the second pectoral muscle, that the first pectoral muscle which in -birds skirts the furculum, must have passed over the coracoid, probably -pulling on its inside in opposition to the third pectoral. Either a -subdivision of this muscle or a distinct muscle in the same place, in -function corresponding to the subclavius muscle, appears to have been -powerfully attached from the anterior prolongation of the keel of the -sternum to the front face of the coracoid. It is improbable that the -second pectoral muscle was undeveloped, but merely directed differently -to what it is in birds, since, as will be seen, there is a process at -the proximal end of the coracoid homologous with that which forms the -pulley round which this muscle in birds works. - -Professor Owen concludes his remarks by observing that the Pterosaurian -breast-bone is in the main formed on the ornithic type. The muscles -also appear to be similar to those of birds. - -All the specimens are much mutilated, but all show the distinctive -post-coracoid lateral emarginations, 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-class. - -The example figured in this memoir and by Professor Owen is 2-5/8 -inches in antero-posterior measurement, probably about one third its -entire length. - -A small example in the collection of Mr Reed of York extends 1-1/4 -inch in the same measurement, and by the analogy of _P. suevicus_ was -more than twice that length when perfect. It is remarkable in that the -coracoid facets look much less outward and much more backward than in -the larger species. - -The mammalian sternum is usually in many consecutive pieces like the -vertebral column. The types in which it attains any size as an expanded -shield are Cetaceans and the Manatee, but in these groups it has no -keel and is not connected with the other bones of the pectoral girdle. -The proximal portion of the sternum of the Mole is elongated and -bird-like, with the shield narrower than in the typical gallinaceous -birds, and with the keel similarly developed. It is connected with the -humerus by small sub-quadrate bones named clavicles placed at the sides -of the proximal end. The sternum in Bats usually consists of a proximal -and a distal part. It is narrow except at the proximal-termination -where it widens like the letter T or Y; and to the sides of the lateral -prolongations are attached the long, slender, curved bones named -clavicles, and a pair of ribs. This sternum develops a bird-like keel. -Both Mole and Bat are regarded as differing from Pterodactyles in the -bone giving attachment to the clavicles instead of to the coracoids. -The proximal part of the sternum in both the living animals, gives -attachment to but one pair of sternal ribs. The Pterodactyle sternum -otherwise differs from the Bats in having the articulations for the -coracoids close together, of a peculiar concavo-convex character, with -a massive portion or keel prolonged forward in front of the coracoid -articulations. The Bat cannot be said to resemble the Pterodactyle -closely. The sternum of the Mole differs from that of the Pterodactyle -in having a less developed shield, and in having a more developed keel -which is not prolonged in front of the coracoid articulations. These -examples demonstrate that resemblance in conformation is functional, -and no proof of affinity. - -Pterodactyles make some approach in the proportions of their sternum -to Struthious birds. But the Struthionidæ have the bone thick, do -not develop a keel, nor, have they an inter-coracoid process while -the coracoid articulations are singularly long and narrow instead -of being ovate. With other birds the Pterodactyle sternum agrees in -giving attachment to the coracoid bones by synovial articulations, in -the bone being shield-shaped, and supporting a more or less developed -keel. The keel is chiefly developed at the proximal end, as in the -Albatross, which has the bone broad; and it is prolonged in front of -the coracoids exactly as in _Mergus merganser_, which sternum if a -little broader in the shield and thicker in the keel would very nearly -reproduce the sternum of the Pterodactyle, even to the "post-coracoid -lateral emargination" of Cambridge specimens. Among reptiles the only -form which suggests comparison is the Chameleon, in which however the -sternum consists of an anterior and a posterior part as in the Bats, -the back part narrow, and the front part a long lozenge shape, with -a keel made by inclination of the sides of the bone to each other as -in the Dodo, but the keel such as it is, is at the back part of the -bone, and there is no prolongation in front of the coracoids as in -Pterodactyle. The coracoids are broad, and are applied to the two -anterior sides of the lozenge. The Crocodile has a narrow flat sternum -which is prolonged anteriorly between the coracoids. - -The resemblance is greater with mammals than with reptiles. From birds -the Pterodactyle sternum makes no essential difference, and in the -Merganser finds a close ally. - - - CORACOID. - - Pl. 2, fig. 1-6. - - Case. Comp. Tablet. Specimen. - =J= _a_ 2 1-23 - -Commonly the coracoid in the Cambridge Pterodactyles is anchylosed to -the scapula: occasionally the bones are separate, though the separation -has hitherto only been observed in the largest species. In 1851 -Professor Owen, when figuring the anchylosed ends of the scapula and -coracoid in Pterodactylus giganteus (Bowerbank), observed that in no -part of the skeleton does the Pterodactyle more nearly resemble a bird -than in the scapular arch; a view again urged emphatically in 1859 when -similar fragments were described from the Cambridge Greensand. Since -then perfect examples of the coracoid have occurred, which show the -characters given in the following description. - -The bone is long, with sub-parallel sides, sub-triangnlar in section, -with the proximal end expanded exteriorly and posteriorly, resembling -in form the coracoid of a bird. The front surface looks forward and -outward; it is flattened, is a little convex transversely, and a -little convex in length; it is rugose with muscular attachments, which -terminate in a tubercle on the uppermost fourth of the front, usually -near to the inner side. The middle third of the slightly concave -inside margin of the front aspect, is sharply angular; the parts above -and below it have the angularity rounded off. The outside margin, a -little more concave than the inside margin, is sharply angular in its -distal third, in which the front gradually widens to near the sternal -articulation, when it contracts--the whole sternal termination of -the bone being directed a little inward towards the manubrium of the -sternum. The inside, which faces the opposite coracoid, is convex -transversely in the lower half or two-thirds; its distal termination is -carried inward. The expanded proximal end of the inside is flattened, -or channelled, by the developement inwardly, at the proximal end -of the ridge formed with the front side, of a long strong process -homologous with that on the inner side of the coracoid in birds. The -channel so formed rounds on to the proximal surface of the bone, and -extends backward to the limit of the scapula; over it the second -pectoral muscle may be presumed to have worked[N]. The third side of -the bone is much more concave in length than either of the others; -it looks backward, outward, and downward, the proximal end being -turned outward and downward more than the distal end; it is a little -concave transversely at the expanded proximal end. Near the distal -end there are sometimes visible a few faint marks of the insertion of -muscular fibres, but they are much less distinct than those made by the -coraco-brachialis muscle in the corresponding region of the coracoid -in birds. Throughout its length it rounds into the inner side, and the -upper third rounds convexly into the front. On the most posterior part -of this aspect of the proximal end is a groove terminating in a long -pneumatic foramen, partly in the coracoid, partly in the scapula. - -[Footnote N: The homologous process is more developed in Pterodactylus -giganteus. See f. 7. pl. XXXI. Owen, Cret. Rept.] - -The muscular attachments on the front aspect of the coracoid appear to -be two; one large and long inserted into the inner half of the middle -third of the bone, terminating at the proximal end in a tubercle. No -specimen shows the distal end of the insertion. This may indicate a -subdivision of the first pectoral muscle. The other insertion, if it be -distinct, is long and much narrower and at the distal end of the bone. -This, according to the analogy of birds, should be the third pectoral -muscle; if the insertion should be but part of that to which it is -distally adjacent, then the third pectoral muscle must have had an -enormous developement unparalleled in birds. - -The distal end of the bone terminates in a synovial articulation -concave transversely, convex from front to back, in form transversely -ovate: the narrow side of the articulation, like the thin edge of the -coracoid, being exterior. The articulation is about three fourths of -the transverse diameter of the distal end; it is at right angles with -the long axis of the bone, and looks downward and a little backward. - -The proximal end, massively enlarged outward and backward, presents on -the proximal surface three well defined regions. The largest of these -is an irregular flattened surface half ovate in form, inclined to the -axis of the bone at about 45°, looking backward, and upward also, -when the bone is held vertically; the mesial hindermost half of the -radius of this area is occupied by a pneumatic cavity: to this surface -is applied the scapula. The next largest surface is rectangular and -oblong, looking upward, outward, and a little forward. The transverse -aspect which looks outward being nearly half as long again as the -antero-posterior aspect which looks forward; in the latter direction -the area is slightly concave, in the former direction it is slightly -convex; its posterior boundary is parallel with the front of the bone: -this area forms the anterior moiety of the glenoid cavity, to which the -proximal end of the humerus is applied. - -The remaining surface of the proximal end is sub-quadrate, adjoins the -two other surfaces as well as the front and the inside of the shaft, it -is conically concave. - -The entire bone when applied to the sternum looked outward, backward -and upward. - -Professor Owen remarked (1859) that the "coracoid is shorter and -straighter in birds than in Pterodactyles, but is commonly broader, and -with a longer and stronger anterior process." - -The points in which the Pterodactyle coracoid resembles that of -birds (e. g. Gallinaceæ) are the long slender triangular shaft; the -concavo-convex articulation to the sternum; the convexity of the distal -end in front, and its concavity behind; the posterior aspect of its -scapular surface, and the pneumatic foramen. - -The points in which it is distinct from birds are that the bone is -not produced proximally beyond the glenoid cavity for the humerus, -which, instead of being lateral as in birds, and looking outward, -in Pterodactyles forms the proximal-termination of the bone. The -sternal articulation is proportionally much shorter transversely in -Pterodactyles, terminating in a convex margin which rounds up into the -thin outer margin, as in the immature coracoid of the common Cock. -It is bow-shaped in front instead of being straight, and is commonly -longer than in birds. The usual ossified connection with the scapula -is not entirely unparalleled in birds, the whole pectoral girdle being -sometimes anchylosed into a bony mass as in the frigate bird. - -In the monotremata, the only mammals in which the coracoids are -separate bones, they rather recall those of Ichthyosaurus than those of -any other animals, and have no connection with the sternum. The bone -which represents it functionally in placental mammals is the clavicle. - -In no reptile is there any structure resembling the Ornithosaurian -coracoid. The nearest approximation is made by the Crocodile, in which -as in the Chameleon the pectoral girdle is formed as in pterodactyles -and struthious birds by scapula, coracoid and sternum. But in the -Crocodile the coracoid is compressed, and expanded from side to side -both proximally and distally. Distally it has no synovial articulation -with the sternum; and proximally a wide process of the bone extends -beyond the articulation for the humerus as in birds, only the scapula -unites with the prolonged part, and the glenoid cavity looks forward -and inward. - -The coracoid is essentially avian in its affinities, though with -peculiar characters of its own. In the German genera it closely -resembles specimens from the Cambridge Greensand. - -23 specimens are exhibited. Nos. 4, 10, 12, are the middle parts of -shafts of left coracoids. Nos. 3-12, 22, are the middle parts of shafts -of right coracoids. Nos. 2, 5, 14, are proximal ends of left coracoids. -Nos. 1, 6, 8, 9, 23, are proximal ends of right coracoids. Nos. 15, -16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, are distal ends of left coracoids. No. 13 is a -nearly perfect left coracoid, and No. 7 is the glenoid cavity for the -humerus formed by a right coracoid with the anchylosed scapula. - - - SCAPULA. - - Pl. 1, figs. 2-12. - - Case. Comp. Tablet. Specimen. - =J= _a_ 3 1-17 - 4 1- 6 - 5 1- 4 - -Professor Owen described the scapula of Pterodactylus giganteus in -1851, and added further particulars regarding the Species from the -Cambridge Greensand, in 1859; but, as with the coracoid, only the -humeral end has hitherto been figured. The only example sufficiently -perfect to give the length and proportions of the bone is preserved in -the collection of Mr Reed, of York. This left scapula is a stout strong -bone, short in proportion to its strength, of flattened ovate form in -section, expanding at the humeral end into an irregular sub-rhomboid -mass. It is smaller in the middle, contracting both from side to side -and from back to front till the back to front measurement is 7/16 of -an inch, and the side to side measurement is 11/16 of an inch, and -it expands a little at the free end, which terminates in a smooth -heart-shaped surface, convex in the long diameter, which measures 7/8 -of an inch, and flat in the short one, which measures nearly 5/8 of -an inch; it is at right angles with the inside of the bone. The sharp -superior lateral outline is concave, but less so than the inferior -lateral outline; into that inferior aspect of the bone the sides are -more fully rounded. The flattened inner surface applied to the ribs is -concave in the length of the bone, which measures 3-1/2 inches; the -posterior half of which is convex transversely, the anterior humeral -half is concave transversely so as to be cup-shaped, and measures in -extreme width 1-11/16 inch; the outline of the transversely convex -outer side in length is nearly straight, but the exterior part and -glenoid cavity of the proximal end is broken away, and there only -remains a small median proximal sur&ce broken at both ends, a little -concave in length, measuring 5/8 of an inch, and convex in breadth -measuring 1/4 of an inch. - -As there is no specimen in the Woodwardian Museum showing clearly the -connection of the proximal with the distal end, the specimens are -arranged on separate tablets. - - -Humeral End of Scapula. - -The humeral end of the scapula exhibits in the different species much -diversity of form, spreading laterally from the shaft, and terminating -in an elongated articular surface truncating the bone nearly at -right angles. On its inferior border it throws out a large convex -tuberosity, separated from the humeral articular surface by a deep -emargination. From the tuberosity usually arises a crescentic row of -muscular insertions, which is continued inward and forward over the -most compressed part of the scapula towards the middle of the humeral -articulation. From the superior margin, interior to the coracoid, -arises a prominent ridge, the spine of the scapula, which is directed -diagonally backward and downward, terminating in the middle of the -outer surface, where it is bordered on the anterior aspect by a long -narrow muscular attachment. Between this spine and the elevated margin -of the glenoid cavity the bone is much compressed and concave. - -On the inside surface of the bone there appear to be small muscular -attachments in front of and behind the great tuberosity. The area -between the spine and the inner surface is sometimes flattened, -sometimes gently convex. - -With well-marked distinctive characters in the inferior tuberosity, -the pre-tuberous emargination and the thick rounded form of the bone, -the Pterodactyle scapula is intermediate in character between that -of a mole, a bird, and the crocodile; wanting the sabre shape of the -bird's scapula, it also wants the wide expanded form of the scapula of -the Crocodile, but resembles the latter in the direction and degree of -developement of the spine. This modification is probably due to the -outward direction and clavicular function of the coracoid, as well as -to the raptorial habit of the organism. - -In no living Reptile is there a scapula to be compared with that -of the Pterodactyle, for besides the free end being expanded, in -the crocodile, it is also thin and squamous and the bone makes a -continuous curve with the coracoid as in struthious birds, and not a -sharp angle as in Pterodactyles. The "spine" in crocodiles is on the -anterior border of the bone and directed upward and backward, while in -Pterodactyles it is on the posterior border and directed upward and -forward. In the Chameleon the scapula is more elongated and narrow, -narrower in proportion to its length than in Pterodactyle, but becomes -rapidly wide at its union with the coracoid. It is curved in length so -as to fit on to convex ribs. A scapula presenting some resemblance to -Pterodactyle is found in certain Liassic Ichthyosaurs. - -Among mammals a straight elongated narrow scapula is rare. The mole -however has a scapula of this kind somewhat cylindrical in its proximal -half and not much expanded at the free end, on which there is a -small spine. The anterior emargination above the glenoid cavity in -Pterodactyle is entirely mammalian, as is the anterior tuberosity above -the emargination, for it entirely corresponds with what in ruminants, -pachyderms and many mammals would be named the coracoid process. If -that process is accurately determined it is difficult to say what this -is. - -In birds there is often a prolonged process on the inner side of the -coracoid, which however extends interior to other parts of the scapula, -and to this the furculum is attached. Such traces of a spine as are to -be detected in the swan conform to the Pterodactyle. - - -No bird has the scapula cylindrical, even struthious birds only making -an approximation to such a condition; and no birds have the scapula so -straight. The bone is more avian and mammalian than reptilian; and -more avian than mammalian but with strong distinctive characters of its -own. - -17 specimens of the humeral ends of scapulæ are exhibited. Nos. 1, 4, -6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14, 15, 17 are left scapulæ. Nos. 2, 3, 5, 10, 12, -16 are right scapulæ. - -The tablet of the distal ends of scapulæ comprises 6 specimens. - - -Fore-Limb. - - HUMERUS. - - Pl. 4. - - Case. Comp. Tablet. Specimen. - =J= _a_ 6 1-46 - 7 1- 3 - 8 1 - -There are among the fossils of the Cambridge Greensand at least two -well-marked _types_ of Pterodactyle humerus, readily recognised by the -forms of the proximal and of the distal ends, and by the positions of -the pneumatic foramina. In the group having the ulnar ridge developed -the pneumatic foramen is on the posterior aspect of the bone[O] under -the ulnar ridge, as in birds; but in some of the small Pterodactyles -the foramen is on the anterior surface, and on its radial side. This -latter kind of humerus has the distal end more or less divided into -three convex surfaces, while the radial crest is enormously developed -and terminates in a smooth oblong flattened surface nearly as large -as the proximal articular surface, and looking anteriorly. The distal -articular surfaces are not as in birds parallel to that of the proximal -end, though they agree with those of birds in being at right angles -to the radial crest; this ridge in Pterodactyles being directed much -further outward and backward than in birds. - -[Footnote O: Professor Owen states (p. 16, 3d Supt.) that the foramen -is palmar. Fig. 15. T. III. 2d Supt. shows it to be anconal.] - -The largest forms of Pterodactyle all have the distal articular surface -flatter, and the proximal articulation less bent back so as to look -more upwards. No specimen of this kind of humerus has occurred with the -radial crest preserved; but it is apparently carried farther down the -shaft and not so far forward as in the other group. This latter kind -of bone is shown by Prof. Owen in T. III. figs. 1, 2, 3rd Sup. Cret. -Reptiles; the former kind has been illustrated in figure 5 of the same -plate. - -Some of the most gigantic Pterodactyles appear to have had the -limb-bones as solid as those of crocodiles, and unpermeated by air; -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 rocks. - -The osteological series comprises 46 specimens. No. 30 is a nearly -perfect right humerus. Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 18, 22, 23, 25, 39 -are examples of the proximal ends of left humeri. Nos. 3, 4, 10, 12, -13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 24, 26, 27, 28, 38, 40, 41 are examples of the -proximal ends of right humeri. Nos. 20, 21, 32, 33, 34, 35, 37, 42, 44, -45, are examples of the distal ends of left humeri. Nos. 29, 31, 36, 43 -and 46 are distal ends of right humeri. - -No. 30 shows the entire length of the humerus to be 2-1/2 inches. It -has a nearly circular shaft with a diameter of a little more than a -quarter of an inch, being more slender than the corresponding bone -of Pt. suevicus, which has the same length. The _proximal_ articular -surface is crescentic, the anterior concavity corresponding with -the concave anterior aspect of the proximal end, while the convex -border corresponds to the convex posterior side of the bone, which -it overhangs: it is worn, but appears to measure half an inch from -the radial to the ulnar side. The ulnar ridge (which is worn) has -not extended more than a quarter of an inch beyond the articular -surface. The thin bird-like radial crest, arising rather more distally -than the ulnar ridge, is flat on its posterior surface, and extends -anteriorly for a distance nearly half as far again as the length of -the proximal articular surface of the humerus. On the proximal third -of the posterior face are two contiguous long narrow oblique muscular -insertions. The proximal ends Nos. 22, 23, 24, 25 are examples of this -kind of bone, having the pneumatic foramen radially situated on the -anterior aspect near to the articular surface, as may be seen in No. -24. No. 25 shows the termination of the radial crest in an oblique -oblong smooth surface, slightly convex in length and breadth, directed -distally towards the ulnar side. - -No. 6, 7, 13, 27, are examples of another kind of proximal end, -where the pneumatic foramen is an oval hole on the ulnar side of the -posterior sur&ce. The radial crest arises more distally, and the ulnar -ridge more proximally, than in the small species, like No. 30. - -Nos. 4, 11, 14, 16 are examples of other species with the foramen -placed as in the last group, only less near to the proximal end, while -it enters obliquely, being directed distally from the broad concave -area proximal to it. The largest proximal ends known, such as No. 2, -which though very imperfect measures 2-3/4 inches over what remains of -the articular surface, appear to conform to this latter type. - -_Distally_ the humerus No. 30 enlarges, widening rapidly on the radial -side, which is bordered near the distal end by a sharp ridge showing -a muscular attachment, while the ulnar side is rounded and rather -inflated. The articular surface looks downward and in the direction -of the radial process. There is a mesial concavity on the radial side -which is bordered on the right and on the left by a prominent rounded -condyle, and behind by a condyloid convexity. On that side which in -conformity with the nomenclature applied to birds' bones, has here been -named the ulnar side, the ulnar and mesial condyles are impressed with -a flattened slightly concave sub-rhomboid area, which looks downward, -backward, and towards the ulnar side. These characters are not well -seen in No. 30, but may be effectively studied in their specific -variations in Nos. 36, 37, 42, 43, 44, 45, and 46. - -Nos. 20, 21, 29, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, are examples of the distal ends of -humeri of a different type. They are mostly larger than the preceding -group, and correspond in characters with the large proximal ends, but -appear to be separable into two groups, namely those with a pneumatic -foramen on the anterior radial side near to the articular surface, -and those where no pneumatic foramen is seen. Unlike the previously -considered type, the ulnar side is sometimes more inflated than the -radial side. - -The mesial condyle in this group appears in every case to be an -epiphysis, which is wanting. The radial condyle becomes a large -flattened slightly convex surface looking downwards, which in some of -the species, as Nos. 21 and 32 (in other respects remarkable species), -shows an approach to a trochlear character on its anterior side. In -Nos. 33, 34 and 35 the mesial anterior concavity becomes flattened and -abuts at an angle against the flattened radial condyle. No. 20 shows -the rhomboid impression on the ulnar side to be more concave and more -ovate. The ulnar condyle remains a smaller but prominent tubercle -directed distally. Nos. 21, 22 and 34 show a ridge developed on the -ulnar side of the shaft like that on the radial side in the other -group, while the radial ridge is not so near to the articular surface. -The largest and smallest distal ends of humeri known, both show the -characters here enumerated. The great distal end of a left humerus, -figured by Prof. Owen, Pl. IV. f. 1, 2, 3 of the 1st Supplement to the -Cretaceous Pterosauria, is of this kind, and though imperfect measures -more than three inches over what remains of the articular surface. In -the small humerus, No. 30, the width over the distal articular surface -is 5/8ths of an inch. If it is assumed that the large bone was no more -than 5 times the length of the small one, the entire length of the -humerus would have been about twelve inches. The smallest humerus, No. -29, measures over the shaft rather more than one eighth of an inch. - -The Ornithosaurian humerus has but little in common with that of any -mammal. Most mammals have the proximal head of the bone hemispherical, -and a pit at the distal end for the olecranon process of the ulna, -while there is usually little indication of a radial crest, and the -proximal and distal ends are in the same plane. In the Bat however the -bone is twisted a little so that the slight radial crest looks in the -same direction as the distal end, here also there is no pit for the -olecranon; but the bone is sigmoid and proportionally much longer than -in Pterodactyles. In the horse, hippopotamus, &c., the radial process -becomes more developed but never resembles that of a Pterodactyle. - -Among reptiles, the bone may be compared with lizards and crocodiles. -In crocodiles the proximal and distal ends are nearly in the same -plane, the distal end has two condyles, the head is convex from side to -side, and the radial crest is moderately developed and never extends so -far outward or so far proximally as in Pterodactyle. In the Chameleon -the bone is more twisted than in Crocodile, and as in Pterodactyle -the distal end is compressed on the radial side to a sharp margin. -In Iguana, Scink, and Monitor both proximal and distal ends are much -expanded, and the radial process makes no approximation to that of a -Pterodactyle. - -The bird humerus does not approximate more closely in form to that -of the Pterodactyle than does the Chameleon humerus, though it has -the cardinal distinction of pneumatic foramina, and these sometimes -corresponding in position in the two groups. - -The bird humerus is commonly longer, though in the parrots the -proportions and straightness are not unlike Pterodactyle. In -some respects a nearer resemblance is seen in the raptorial bird -_Gypogeranus serpentarius_, in which the radial process is rather more -developed than in the Crocodile, and extends further proximally though -still much smaller than in Pterodactyle; here too the superior surface -is concave from side to side, and the distal articulation is not unlike -that of some Pterodactyles. But no Pterodactyle has the head of the -humerus convex from the radial to the ulnar sides, and the bird is -distinctive in having the ulnar crest developed on the inferior side -of the head: a faint approximation to a similar development is seen in -Crocodile, but there is no trace of such a process in Pterodactyle. The -distal end is more Bird-like than Lacertian in form, but is twisted to -a greater angle with the proximal end than in birds. - -Altogether the bone is distinctive. The points in which it is unlike -birds and reptiles are those in which Birds and Lizards resemble each -other; it would not be easy to say that in form it resembles one group -more than the other. But it is linked with birds by the pneumatic -foramina. - - -RADIUS AND ULNA. - - Case. Comp. Tablet. Specimen. - =J= _a_ 9 5- 6 - 10 1-10 - 11 1- 7 - 12 1- 4 - 13 5- 6 - -Of neither of these bones has a perfect specimen been found. While -fragments of humeri are met with frequently, fragments of these bones -are rare. In accordance with the analogy with birds the Ulna might -be presumed to be the larger bone of the two. But from a study of -German specimens the larger bone is found to be the Radius, which -according to the mammalian plan is placed in front of the ulna. As a -whole, the fore-arm of Ornithosaurians is only to be compared with the -insectivorous mammal _Chrysochloris Capensis_, in which there are also -three bones in the fore-arm,--the third bone like the _Pteroid bone_ -in Ornithosaurians, extending about half-way from the carpus to the -humerus, and holding, relatively, a similar position and development to -the fibula in bats. - -The pteroid bone articulated with a separate carpal, and was placed -on the side of the arm, adjacent to the radius, which at the distal -end extended in German specimens more inward than the ulna. In -Chrysochloris the third bone appears to be behind the other bones, and -adjacent to the ulna[P]. - -[Footnote P: See D'Alton and Pander _Chiropteren und Insectivoren_, -Bonn, 1831, pl. 5, Chrysochloris.] - -Among neither birds nor reptiles is any comparable modification of -the fore-arm to be found. Then by examining the proximal surface of -the proximal carpal, the characters of the distal end of the Radius -are readily discovered. The proximal carpal shows on the same surface -another articular facets with which however only one fragmentary distal -end of a bone corresponds. That accordingly is identified as the ulna. -Besides these, three other articular ends of bones occur, one of which -fits on to the distal end of the femur. The remaining two are both -large bones, with epiphyses which formed portions of the articular -surfaces, and are usually wanting. One of these bones corresponds in -form with the ulna of a bird, and would fit the facet on the ulnar -side of the distal end of the Pterodactyle humerus. The other bone -is massive with a sub-quadrate articular end, and might well be the -proximal end of the radius. Some specimens are among the largest -fragments of Pterodactyle bone known. The only other bone that either -of these could be is the distal end of the tibia, a bone not yet known, -but probably not unlike that of a bird. - - -I. Distal End of Ulna. - -Four specimens which show articular ends such as the ulna should have, -are mounted together. They are compressed bones with the section of -the fracture elongately oval; and the shaft widens from the fracture -to the articulation without increasing in thickness. The outer surface -is gently convex, becoming concave mesially near the articulation; -the inner surface has the same characters, only the concavity at the -extreme distal end reaches from side to side of the bone. The two short -sides both look outward as well as laterally; one of them flattened so -as to thicken the bone, is concave in vertical outline owing to the -extreme distal end turning suddenly outward; the other side a little -convex, compresses the bone and inflects its inner margin. The longest -specimen measures 1-5/8 inch; 5/8 inch wide at the fracture, and 1-1/8 -inch wide at the distal end. The greatest thickness at the distal end -is half an inch, the thickness of the fractured shaft is 5/8 of an inch. - -The articular surface appears to have an elongated sub-reniform shape, -the part at the compressed side of the bone being narrower than the -broad ovate part on the thick side of the bone, to the lateral limit -of which it extends, while the narrow part does not extend laterally -nearly so far as the inflected border, which appears to give attachment -to powerful muscles. 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 ridge. - -In its long diameter the articulation is a little convex; transversely -it is very convex in the ovate part, but more flattened in its narrower -continuation. Where widest it measures about 4/10ths of an inch. - -Nos. 5 and 6 on another tablet appear to be distal ends of ulna of -another kind of Pterodactyle. They are less compressed, more quadrate -in section, and have the sides more nearly parallel The flattened -side similarly has a concave border, but instead of having its distal -termination developed laterally, has it thickened behind. The opposite -side of the bone which in the other specimens was compressed is here -thick and well rounded, and not at all inflected. There is an absence -of the concavity noticed on the outer surface of the bone in the -compressed specimens. The articular surface is much flatter, and a -little concave in length instead of being convex; as in the other -examples it looks downward. The largest fragment. No. 5, measures 1-3/8 -inch long; it is 6/8 inch wide at the fracture, and 4/8 inch thick. The -sub-quadrate distal end is more than an inch long, more than 4/8ths -inch thick on the thick side, and nearly 4/8ths inch thick on the -compressed side. - - -II. Distal End of Radius. - -The best preserved of the 10 specimens here exhibited is 3 inches long, -No. 2. The shaft is oval, flattened on one side; measuring at an inch -from the fractured end 7/10ths of an inch in the least diameter, and -one inch in the wide diameter. It widens distally at first slowly, -then rapidly, till at the articular end its greatest width is two -inches. But while expanding laterally it contracts from side to side, -the more convex side of the two at about an inch from the articular -end, beginning to approximate to the flatter side till the articular -end has a short diameter of less than half an inch. - -On the left-hand corner of the convex inner side of the bone is an -elevated flattened disc for muscular attachments, fully half an inch -in diameter, there is a slight muscular attachment interior to this, -nearer the middle of the bone. 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 attachment. Parallel -to this nearer the middle of the side is a much stronger and acutely -elevated ridge. - -The articulation is made up of three distinct parts, all in a straight -line. The portion of bone adjacent to the large muscular disc is -compressed and rounded on the distal end; then first there is a rather -deep circular cup 3/8ths of an inch wide, nearer to the more convex -than to the flatter side of the bone; adjacent to this cup is a convex -ball of about the same size; while the remainder of the articulation -is concave in length, convex from side to side, and looks downward and -a little towards the inner convex side of the bone. The specimens are -arranged so as to display these characters.--The example described is -of nearly the same size as that figured for the humerus in fig. 1, T. -XXIV. of the Cretaceous Reptilia. The less well preserved bone in that -figure exhibits the Ulna in its true position behind the Radius. - - -III. Proximal End of Ulna. - -This bone has much the proportions of the Ulna in birds, the smaller -specimens nearly resembling the ulna of the Heron. The specimen (No. -1) with the shaft best preserved is 2-1/4 inches long, cylindrical at -the fracture, where it measures in diameter 3/16ths of an inch. It -gradually enlarges proximally widening to about 7/10ths of an inch; -near the proximal end it is a little curved, the side which is concave -in length being a little flattened, while there is a lateral elevation -on the opposite side, apparently corresponding to the quill-ridge on -the convex side of the bird-ulna. There is a separate ossification for -the olecranon, which is an irregular sub-oblong bone forming the outer -part of the articulation; it is only preserved in No. 1. Nos. 4, 5 and -6 show the concave transverse groove from which it has come away. - -The articular surface looks upward and forward, in which aspect it has -a trapezoidal form. Sometimes, as in No. 2, the great sigmoid area is -divided into two parts by a vertical ridge, the more elevated part -of the articulation on the radial side of the bone being concave, -while the outer part, as in the heron, besides being concave, has its -border on the concave side of the bone produced and rounded. 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 heron. On this -aspect the bone is flattened, on the opposite and outward aspect it is -compressed and produced as in the bird. No. 2 measures 1-1/8 inch over -the articular end. The series includes 6 specimens. - - -IV. Proximal End of Radius. - -This bone terminated in an epiphysis which formed part of the articular -surface, and has disappeared from all the 7 specimens mounted. So much -of the articulation as remains does not oppose the idea of its having -been attached to the humerus, while the large size of the example No. -7, which could not have measured less than 2-1/2 inches from side to -side over the articulation, 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 tibia, which is the only other unknown bone to which these -specimens could be referred. - -The longest specimen, No. 3, is 3 inches long; broadly ovate at the -fracture, measuring in the long diameter 1 inch, and in the short -diameter more than 3/4ths of an inch. Nearer the articular end the bone -becomes in section sub-quadrate or rather sub-rhomboid. No. 1 shows -these terminal characters extremely well. On the posterior aspect of -the specimen the surface is divided into two flattened slightly convex -parts by a median vertical well-rounded angular bend. In front the side -is similarly divided into two parts, both of them a little concave -proximally, by a sharp median vertical ridge, which does not reach to -the articulation by a varying distance, never so long as the bone is -wide. The ridge terminates in, and is pierced by, a vertical groove -apparently for a nutritive vessel. Where the anterior and posterior -aspects of the bone converge laterally the sides are well rounded. - -Only a small part of the articular surface is preserved, looking upward -and a little forward; it terminates the wider of the halves of the -bone laterally and in front. The remainder of the articular surface, -from which the epiphysis has come away, 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 ridge. The extreme lateral termination appears to have been a -ball-shaped convexity. - -The great length of the fore-arm relatively to the humerus, -characteristic of German Ornithosaurians, from the fragmentary -condition of Cambridge specimens is not seen. - -Although the fore-arm resembles Chrysochloris in _plan_ the -resemblance is not close in the details of form. In many Mammals it is -characteristic for the radius to be the principal bone of the fore-arm, -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 Crocodiles. And among mammals with claws, as in the Lion, Bear, -&c., and in the Chameleon, it is characteristic, for the radius also to -be on the inside of the limb at the distal end, as in Ornithosaurians. -In form, ridges, and muscular attachments (see pl. 3) the distal end of -the radius approximates closely to the Bear and the Lion, and may also -be compared with the Bats and Birds, though with Birds it is a small -bone. From the epiphysis of the proximal end apparently being wanting -it would be difficult to compare closely. But though not like any -particular mammal, 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 mammalia. - -The ulna of the Pterodactyles is at the proximal end altogether -distinguished from mammals by the slight development of the olecranon, -nor can the distal end, especially in its relation to the carpus, be -paralleled. - -Among birds and reptiles the ulna is the large bone, and here a -general resemblance in form to the ulna of Pterodactyles is seen at -the proximal end. It is not compressed from side to side as in the -Crocodile, Iguana, Monitor, &c., but from back to fronts in this -rather resembling Birds than the Chameleon. It however at the distal -end is more crocodilian. - -The fore-arm in plan is mammalian. The Pteroid bone is mammalian, the -Radius is mammalian and avian; the Ulna is avian, and crocodilian in -form, but mammalian in proportion. The pneumatic foramen of the ulna is -peculiarly avian. - - - CARPUS. - - Pl. 5. - - Case. Comp. Tablet. Specimen. - =J= _b_ 1 1-13 - 2 1-18 - 3 1- 4 - 4 1- 8 - -The pterodactyle wrist is made up of three bones, arranged as a -proximal carpal, a distal carpal, and a lateral carpal. Two of them -are figured by Professor Owen, who regarded the distal carpal of -this description as the scapho-cuneiform; while A very imperfect -example of the proximal carpal is named the unciform: neither of these -determinations, the reverse of those which follow, were given as more -than probable guesses. - - -I. Proximal Carpal. - -No. 10 shows the proximal surface well; portions of it are seen in -Nos. 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, and 12. The distal surface is best exhibited -in No. 1; portions of it are shown in Nos. 2, 3, 5, 7, 8. No. 13 is an -impression taken from the proximal sur&ce of a distal carpal to show -its correspondence with distal surface of the proximal carpal. The -bone is proximally of an irregular oblong form, being five sided, and -much broader towards the inner end than towards the outer end. The two -ends are sub-parallel, and rather obliquely connected on one side by -a nearly straight border more than twice as long as the shorter end. -The other limits of the sub-parallel ends are connected by two concave -borders meeting in a well rounded convexity, which is near to the -broader inner end. - -The proximal surface of the bone is flattened, and may be divided into -a sub-rhomboid space, adjacent to the shorter of the sub-parallel ends, -which is moderately concave in the long axis of the bone and slightly -convex transversely, and an oblong space adjacent to the longer of -the two ends. This is separated from the sub-rhomboid space, toward -the straight side of the bone, by an elevated ridge sub-parallel -with the ends. It is directed towards the convexity on the opposite -side, in which the long and short concave parts meet, but after half -crossing the bone it becomes forked in a U shape, and less elevated; -the smooth unarticular included space shows an oval pneumatic foramen, -which varies in size with the different species. The region between -this Y-shaped ridge and the longer of the two ends, is sub-reniform, -slightly concave in its long diameter, and deeply concave in the short -diameter, exactly corresponding in form with the articular surface -already described as the distal end of the ulna. 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 radius; -that is, at the convex angle of the angulated side is placed a -hemispherical boss,' interior to which is a hemispherical concavity, -and extending toward the straight side is the oblique smooth border -of the sub-rhomboid area described. There still remains a space to be -accounted for. This consists of a sub-quadrate area forming the corner -of the bone made by the concave side and the shorter outer end; it is -made up of an inner concave part separated from the radial articulation -by a ridge, and an outer convex part constituting the shorter end of -the bone. - -This carpal is moderately compressed from the proximal to the distal -side, except towards the shorter end of the bone, being there prolonged -distally into a wedge-shaped process, showing at its termination marks -of a powerful muscular attachment. - -The outer lateral surface is of variable antero-posterior extent. - -The distal articular surface is placed entirely toward the narrow -end of the bone, leaving at the proximal end a large smooth rhomboid -unarticular area, of which every side is a little concave: it connects -obliquely the proximal with the distal articular surfaces. 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 -rounded: it is slightly concave in length as well as transversely, and -is slightly twisted like the flukes of a screw. Adjacent to this region -laterally is the other and sub-triangular part of the articulation. -The broad end of the triangle is toward the broad end of the bone; it -is concave in length and flattened transversely. The two parts of the -articulation are inclined to each other at a large angle, both looking -downward and outward, but on opposite sides of the bone. - - -II. Distal Carpal. - -The tablets of this bone comprise 22 specimens. Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, -8, 9, 10, 15, 16, 19 and 22 are so mounted as to exhibit the proximal -surface. Nos. 7, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 20 and 21 show the distal -surface of the bone. No. 17 is a cast from the distal sur&ce of a -proximal carpal for comparison with the proximal surface of the distal -carpal. No. 16 is a cast from the proximal end of the wing-metacarpal -for comparison with the distal surface of the distal carpal. No. 20 -is a distal carpal of unusual type, 19 is a cast from its proximal -surface, and 21 is a cast from the distal surface of the same specimen. - -The proximal aspect of this bone is rather narrower than the distal -aspect; each is sub-triangular in outline, the sides being convexly -curved. 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 -depression; in the short axis, that is, between the two longer sides, -the middle of the bone is hollow, but the oblique transverse depression -makes both sides of the hollow convex,--so that excepting the smooth -unarticular triangular area adjacent to the apex, 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 other: -the apex of that cone which should touch the short side or base of -the triangle formed by the bone, is truncated by a depression which -exhibits an oval pneumatic foramen. Towards the apex, on the same side -as the pneumatic foramen, the margin of the bone is rounded for a small -terminal oval articulation which looks outward and upward. - -[Footnote Q: Outer and inner are here used in accordance with the usual -interpretation, and the better to compare with birds.] - -The lateral aspects of the bone are at right angles to the proximal and -distal surfaces. They are smooth, a little concave in antero-posterior -extent, and convex in the opposite direction. That one on to which -the marginal articular surface impinges is except for that surface -sub-quadrate in outline; the opposite side has a slightly crescentic -form, the flattened outline being distal. They show several small -foramina. - -The distal aspect of the bone is comparatively flat. The distal surface -consists of a smooth unarticular part adjacent to the apex, rather -smaller than the corresponding area on the proximal aspect of the bone. -Between this part and the sub-crescentic articular surface, which -occupies the remainder of the distal area, is a large circular pit, -furthest removed from the side of the bone which forms the sub-apical -marginal articulation. The pit on the apical side shows several small -foramina; on the outer side of the bone the roughened articular -surface extends down the pit side. The articulation is flattened from -side to side of the bone. Its outer margin is slightly prominent, and -the margin of the pit is slightly convex and prominent, so that the -intervening articular surface in the direction between these limits -is concave. It is commonly divided into two parts by a median band -limiting a depressed half, which is in a slightly different plane -from the other half of the articulation. Where the depressed part -terminates towards the marginal articulation, which does not extend -so far distally, there is between the two a small step-like roughened -articular portion. - -The large crescentic articulation described gave attachment to the -wing-metacarpal bone; if there was a second metacarpal terminating -in a claw, it must have been attached to the small articulation last -referred to. In No. 20 the pit is extremely small, the impressed part -of the articulation is small and deeply sunk, while the apicular -articulation is widened and shortened so as to make the outline of the -bone quadrate. - - -III. Lateral Carpal. - -The tablet exhibits eight examples of a bone which at its distal end is -attached to the marginal apicular articulation of the distal carpal, -thence extending proximally, and terminating in an articular facet for -the third bone of the fore-arm, so as to overlap laterally both of the -other carpals. The bone is compressed, is three times as wide as thick, -and in outline sub-quadrate with a distal talon. On the inner side it -is flat, 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 side, -and sometimes bent at a sharp angle. The talon on the inner aspect of -the bone is flat and continuous with the quadrate side, but on the -outer aspect it is separated from the side by an elevated transverse -thickening, distally to which the bone is compressed, and rounded into -the adjacent parts. The talon extends over more than half of the distal -end of the bone, and constitutes with the remainder of the distal end, -the distal articulation, which is flat from front to back, and concave -from side to base. The proximal articulation is cupped and extends over -the whole proximal surface; it is at right angles with the sides of the -bone. Both the inner and outer sides exhibit small pneumatic foramina. -No. 8 differs from the other specimens in its sub-triangular lateral -outline, and general less complex modifications. - -The Carpus of the Cambridge Ornithosaurians at first sight is not -easily compared with that of Birds; Birds having but one bone between -the radius and the metacarpus. But that one bone in the Ostrich, for -instance, is not unlike in form to the proximal carpal of Pterodactyle; -while the proximal end of the metacarpus presents so close an analogy -with the distal carpal of the Pterodactyle, that even were it not -easily demonstrated that the bone in Birds commonly called the -metacarpus is a carpo-metacarpus[R], it would be strong evidence for -such a determination. In Birds there is a small lateral bone between -the ulna and carpo-metacarpus which is evidently homologous with the -lateral carpal of our Pterodactyles, and so, since this lateral carpal -of the Ostrich is the pisiform bone, it results that the lateral -carpal of Pterodactyle is the pisiform bone also. From this follows a -conclusion of the first importance in the interpretation of the hand. -The fine hair-like metacarpals of the Pterodactyle are on the side -towards the pisiform bone, while the great wing-metacarpal is on the -side towards the index finger. - -[Footnote R: They separate without difficulty in the Chicken.] - -In Birds the rudimentary thumb (or second finger, according to Owen) -has no connection with the carpus. In the Penguin, _Aptenodytes -Patagonica_, it has disappeared altogether, and there then remain two -fingers of which the outer one (seen from the front as we have placed -our animal) is the larger, and has the greatest number of phalanges, -precisely as in Ornithosaurians. Moreover the wing-metacarpal, in the -Penguin especially, is seen to unite with the carpus directly under the -radius, as is the case with the Cambridge Ornithosaurians. Hence it -follows that in Pterodactyles the thumb is not developed, and that the -wing-finger is not the little finger, but the index finger, precisely -as in Birds. If Goldfuss gave a reverse arrangement it was because the -hand in his specimen, as is proved by the claws, was upside down. In -the immature state the distal carpal of Pterodactyle appears to have -been composite. - -Notwithstanding the opinions of eminent German philosophers to -the contrary no reptile has a carpus comparable to that of the -Pterodactyle. If some of them have two rows of bones and a pisiform -bone, so have mammals, and the mammalian arrangement is not more like -the Ornithosauria than is that in Reptiles. - - - METACARPAL BONE. - - Pl. 6. - - Case. Comp. Tablet. Specimen. - =J= _b_ 5 1-3 - -The illustrations of this bone comprise 31 specimens. Nos. 1 to 15 -are examples of the proximal end, and Nos. 16 to 31 show the distal -trochlear end of the bone. No. 1, which is nearly entire, gives the -form and proportions of the wing-metacarpal in one species, 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 example. It is 3-5/8 inches long, to which -three-eighths of an inch may be added for the distal articulation, -making the length up to 4 inches. The proximal end is not well -preserved, but in its wide measurement is 5/8ths of an inch; the distal -end in the same measurement is about 3/8ths of an inch. A large example -from the Chalk, in the Museum of C. Moore Esq. of Bath, shows the bone -more attenuated distally. No. 1 is compressed so as to be oblong in -section at the proximal end, and ovate in the middle of the shaft, -which is slightly smaller than the distal end. One of the lateral -outlines is straight; the other is concave. The bone is straight. In -No. 30 the shaft where thickest measures less than 1/4 of an inch, -becoming nearly circular in section. The shaft of No. 31 measures -nearly an inch in width at its distal end, rather more than half an -inch in thickness. No. 10 is 1-1/2 inch wide at the proximal end and -7/8ths of an inch thick. No. 9 would not have measured less when -perfect than 2-1/2 inches over the proximal end, so that if it had the -proportions of No. 1 it would have measured when entire not less than -16 inches in length. - -The Proximal End. - -The proximal end has never been figured. Prof. Owen's figure pl. IV. -fig, 4-5, First Supt. Cret. Rep. is probably part of a jaw, and not -the wing-metacarpal. 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 bone. - -In the middle of the flat inside margin and extending proximally is -a semi-cylindrical process, which is prolonged a short distance down -the side of the bone as an elevated ridge. On the flattened articular -end this process is bordered by a semicircular furrow which extends -half-way across the bone, outside of which is a slightly convex -semicircular band which extends to the outer margin of the bone, -except towards the short side opposite to that one which rounds into -the outer side, where there appears to be a narrow unarticular area. -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 distally; they are both limited by inward extensions of the -short sides of the bone, that crest being most developed in height and -length which is toward the flattened short side. The outline which -these modifications give to the inner side of the proximal surface -is intermediate in form between the letters S and [sideways M]. - - -The Distal End. - -The distal end has been figured by Prof. Owen in the British Fossil -Mammals, p. 545; in Dixon's Geology of Sussex, Pl. XXIX. fig. 12; Cret. -Reptiles, Pl. XXXII. figs. 4 and 5, First Supt. Pl. IV, fig. 9-11, and -other places, and fully described. It closely resembles the distal end -of a bird's tibia; and consists of a pulley-shaped end set obliquely -on to the compressed shaft, which just above the junction is reniform -in section, 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 end, while on the opposite side there is a corresponding -_median depression_ which does not extend far proximally. In this -depression is an oval pneumatic foramen; on the right of the median -ridge of the other side, but placed more distally, is another pneumatic -foramen. The median ridge has sometimes a slight furrow on each side. -It terminates proximally in strong muscular insertions, which extend -round the right side of the bone; and distally, becoming more elevated -and rounded, it curves obliquely to the rights and forming one of the -sides of the pulley, passes round the base as three quarters of a -spiral, the termination extending laterally beyond the shaft. On this -side of the bone, distal to the median depression, arises another ridge -strong and well rounded, which is directed to the right, similarly -passes round the base as a spiral, and forms the other side of the -pulley. It is not so prominent as the border previously described. -While the spirals approximate at their origin, they become widely -separated at the base, making the articulation wider than the shaft. In -No. 31 the three inches of the shaft which remain show both pairs of -its sides sub-parallel; the widest measures nearly an inch; the base of -the articulation is less than a quarter of an inch wider. - -Limited to the base, between the two outer ridges of the pulley, is -a short median ridge slightly developed; so as to flatten the middle -of the concavity between the ridges, and divide it into two grooves. -The degree to which the middle ridge is developed varies in different -species. In No. 30, the smallest pterodactyle, remarkable for a long -wing-metacarpal bone, it is not to be detected. The exterior sides of -the trochlear articulation are broad, flattened, and a little concave. - -There is some variation in the way in which the shaft is set on the -trochlear end. It being often in the middle, but not unfrequently -inclined more to one side than to the other. - -The metacarpus finds no close parallel among living animals. The -thread-like metacarpal bones suggest the condition of the hind-foot -in the Kangaroo. The predominant metacarpal suggests the ruminants. -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 -slender. This may be observed (among other examples) in the Penguin -and the Swan. But here the parallel ends. The proximal end in Birds, -we have already seen to be hidden by the anchylosed distal row of the -carpus, and the distal end though often convex from side to side never -presents the trochlear joint of the Pterodactyle. Consequently so far -as regards the form of the articular ends the resemblance is closer -with Reptiles and clawed Mammals than with Birds. In Birds the small -metacarpal is usually of similar length with the large one as is the -case with Pterodactyles. - - - FIRST PHALANGE. - - Pl. 7. - - Case. Comp. Tablet. Specimen. - =J= _b_ 6 1-10 - -No perfect specimen of the first phalange has been found in the -Cambridge Greensand. Ten bones are mounted to illustrate it, all of -them less perfect than others in the series of associated bones. No. -1 shows the heel of the proximal end; Nos. 9 and 10 are portions of -the proximal articulation from which the epiphysis which forms the -articular heel-part seen in No. 1 has come away. Nos. 2 to 8 are the -distal articular ends of first phalanges. It is improbable that any of -them belong to the second phalange, since they agree in form, and show -muscular attachments which correspond. - -Prof. Owen has figured the shaft of a fine example of this bone in -Dixon's Geology of Sussex, Pl. XXXIX. fig. 11. A good proximal end is -shown in Pl. XXXII. fig. 2, of Prof. Owen's monograph of the Cretaceous -Reptilia, but the figure appears to have been previously given in Pl. -XXIV. fig. 2 of the same monograph. By far the grandest specimens are -drawn in Pl. XXX. Prof. Owen names these wing bones. In the "Literature -of English Pterodactyles" the loss of the proximal epiphysis from the -specimen represented in Prof Owen's fig. 1 and 2 led me to interpret -the bone as an ulna. Figs. 1 to 4 represent the proximal ends and -greater portions of the shafts of first phalanges. The lower bone -in fig. 5 is neither radius nor ulna, as stated in the text of the -Cretaceous Reptilia, but the shaft and distal end of a first phalange; -the upper bone being the second phalange. - -The Proximal End. - -The straight shaft throughout its length is triangular in section. One -side of the bone is gently convex; this may be named for convenience -the outside. The two parts which make up the other side are inclined, -and have the angle in which they meet rounded; one part looks upward -and inward, the other downward and inward. Towards the proximal end the -bone widens and thickens, and the moiety of the inner side which is -away from the heel becomes cleft, and has the sides of the depression -rounded to form a large pneumatic foramen. The articular surface looks -upward and a little outward on the side of the pneumatic foramen. -It consists of two semicircular concave grooves, separated by an -intervening low convexity. The outer of these grooves extends from the -margin of the extreme proximal point of the heel to the widest point -of the bone; the other groove more deeply concave, is a third shorter, -extending from inside the pneumatic foramen to the heel. Here both -grooves converge, terminating in a point, exterior to which a little -distally is a hemispherical mammilate eminence. On the distal side of -the eminence there is a depression so as to make the angle behind the -heel almost hemispherically rounded. This articulation fits on to the -distal articulation of the wing-metacarpal. - -When the proximal epiphysis forming the heel comes away, it leaves a -large sub-circular pit with a depressed narrow border. - -Distal End. - -On nearing the distal end, the angle of the inner side of the shaft -becomes more depressed; and the articulation becomes an elongated oval, -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 inward. Hence -the two articular surfaces are sub-parallel; but the distal one at -its distal termination is bent inward, so as to make the adjacent -lateral outline of the bone concave on the inside at its termination. -The articulation does not cover the most proximal part of the distal -surface. - - - SECOND PHALANGE. - - Pl. 7. - - Case. Comp. Tablet. Specimen. - =J= _b_ 7 1-14 - -On this tablet are mounted 14 specimens. Nos. 1 to 9 are examples of -the proximal end of the second phalange. If there were more than two -phalanges, of which there is no osteological evidence, it is possible -that proximal ends of succeeding phalanges may be included with these. -They all however resemble each, other so closely as to lend no support -to such a supposition. Nos. ?10 to ?14 have been mounted with the -proximal ends because they appear to be portions of the middle of the -shaft of the second phalange; they indicate a rapid distal attenuation, -favouring the idea of there being but two phalanges. - -The proximal end of the shaft has the outer side flattened, rarely -concave, commonly slightly convex; the inner side being much more -inflated, and not dissimilar in form to the inner side of the first -phalange. Proximally the bone widens and one lateral outline extends -outward in a curve, on the inner side of which, under the proximal -articulation, is placed the pneumatic foramen. The elongated oval -articular surface is concave from side to side and concave in length; -it does not extend in length so far as the straight side outline, -exterior to it being a crescentic flattened or convex area. The distal -end attenuates more rapidly in some specimens than others, and appears -in Nos. 11, 12, and 14 eventually to become cylindrical; but none of -the specimens show its distal termination. - -The phalanges of the wing-finger attain a grand development in length -which is not paralleled in Birds, nor surpassed in Bats. In the Ostrich -there are three phalanges in the wing-finger, while in Ornithopterus -there are two joints, and in other German Pterodactyles four joints. -The terminal joint in the Ostrich is a claw, but in Pterodactyle the -terminal joint appears to be unarmed as in ordinary birds. The form of -the bones in being compressed from side to side is more bird-like than -bat-like. But the claws in their compression from side to side are more -like the bat than the bird. - - - DISTAL END OF METACARPAL - - or Metatarsal Bones. - - Pl. 6. - - Case. Comp. Tablet. Specimen. - =J= _b_ 7 1-14 - -Sub-cylindrical bones, apparently elongated, and a little compressed -obliquely, terminating distally in a slightly expanded trochlear -articulation. Some of them show on one side marks of an osseous -adhesion: this has led to their being regarded as claw metacarpals -rather than as the distal ends of tibiæ. But on the supposition of -their being claw metacarpals, they are as compared with the same bones -in _Pt. Suevicus_, out of all proportion large, since wing-metacarpals -from the Cambridge Greensand would not as a rule have a diameter -more than twice that of these bones. The trochlear articulation is -smaller in proportion to the shaft than in the wing-metacarpal, and -usually shows a pit at the side and grooves above for ligaments; the -mesial pulley groove is shallow and broad. Seven specimens are mounted -in illustration, of which No. 3 may be regarded as doubtful. It is -possible that they may be metatarsals. - - - CLAW PHALANGE. - - Pl. 8. - - Case. Comp. Tablet. Specimen. - =J= _b_ 8 1-3 - -These three sub-triangular bones, which supported the claws, are much -compressed from side to side, and consequently deep. The superior -outline is convex from front to back and rounded from side to side. The -inferior outline is concave from front to back, sometimes narrower, -sometimes broader than the upper part of the bone, while the inferior -aspect is always more flattened than the superior aspect. On each side -on the lower half of the bone is a deep groove. The articular end is -divided into an upper articular part, which extends as far down as the -lateral groove and a lower non-articular part with ligament markings. -The articulation is concave from above downward, and is divided into -two lateral parts by a mesial vertical ridge. The articular end is -about half as deep as the bone is long. - - - Pelvic Girdle and Hind Limb. - - OS INNOMINATUM. - - Pl. 8. - - Case. Comp. Tablet. Specimen. - =J= _b_ 10 1-9 - -Nine specimens are mounted in illustration of the pelvic girdle: Nos. -1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 show the acetabular or femoral aspects. The right os -innominatum is exemplified by Nos. 1, 4 and 5; the left by Nos. 3 and -6. No. 2 shows the sacral aspect of a left ischium, and its attachments -with the pubis and ilium. No. 8 is the sacral aspect of a left os -pubis. No. 9 is the femoral aspect of a right OS pubis. None of the -specimens are sufficiently complete to give the form of any of the -bones. The only known example of an entire or nearly entire pelvis at -all comparable in form, is seen in the original specimen of Dimorphodon -macronyx figured by Buckland, _Trans. Geol. Soc._ Ser. 2. vol. III. p. -217. In nearly all the fossils from the Cambridge Greensand the bones -of the pelvis are anchylosed together. - -The ossa innominata have been determined as right and left on the -supposition that the pelvis of the Dimorphodon is in situ, and from the -general correspondence of the form of the constituent elements with -elements of the pelvis in the lower mammals, reptiles, and birds. - -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 cup, that is to say, which extends dorsally along -the sacral vertebræ is prolonged anteriorly as a strong narrow straight -style, the base of which is seen in the parts marked _Ilium_ in Nos. -1 and 6. A more perfect example may be studied in a pelvis from the -Cambridge Greensand preserved in the collection of the Geological -survey. Posterior to the acetabulum a similar but stronger bony style -extends for more than the length of the acetabulum, curving slightly -downward at its posterior part. The dorsal outline of this portion of -the bone is slightly concave. The posterior horn like the anterior -horn forms part of the ilium which constitutes the upper half of the -acetabular cup. The os innominatum contracts in antero-posterior -extent below the acetabulum, and immediately widens again in a thin -concave bony expansion. The anterior or pubic outline is comparatively -straight, and at right angles with the ilium; the posterior or ischiac -outline is deeply cupped where the ischium unites with the ilium, and -becoming straight extends backward at a considerable angle. The ischium -contributes less to the pelvic cup than either the ilium or pubis; -it is flat in front and convex on the visceral side, rounding into -the narrow flattened posterior side. The pubis is separated from the -ischium by a suture extending vertically through the obturator foramen. -The obturator foramen [seen in No. 9] is small and oval, less than half -the diameter of the acetabulum, situated below its ventral border. It -passes obliquely downward and a little forward, and its opening makes -the exterior aspect of the pubis concave; the visceral aspect of the -pubis is convex from side to side like the ischium. The sacral aspect -of so much of the os innominatum as is seen, is concave from the dorsal -to the ventral margins, and is cupped behind and below the acetabulum, -the surface being rough. Among reptiles the ilium is chiefly behind -the acetabulum, in mammals it is chiefly in front. In the over-lapping -group, Aves, it extends both ways. Among the Amphibia the ilium is -chiefly anterior to the acetabulum. In Crocodiles it has a slight -extension both ways, in Dinosaurs the extensions are more marked and -the whole arrangement approximates to birds. But among animals which -have been affiliated with reptiles the Dicynodonts are the only order -in which there is a pelvis so mammalian and massive. If the ilium of -the Monotreme genus Echidna had a posterior extension, the pelvis would -be altogether comparable with the pelvis of this Pterodactyle, and -would differ chiefly in the larger obturator foramen, the perforated -acetabulum and the unanchylosed condition of the pelvic elements. The -pelvis of Apteryx does not make any near approximation. - -Moreover specimens Nos. 3 and 4 show on the anterior pubic border, -about the base of the acetabulum, a slight pit or roughness to -which something has been attached, 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 Echidna. Most -German Pterodactyles show on the OS pubis an enormous prepubic bone. -In Iguana the pubis forms at its anterior border, a sharp angular -process. In Chelydra the process is long and narrower, and arises -from the middle of the border. In Echidna this prepubic process has -become a distinct prepubic bone and is more elongated. Unlike the -marsupial bones it is attached to the pubis by a wide base. The -anterior pubic roughness of Cambridge specimens, and the loose bones -of the Dimorphodon, &c. indicate the existence of structures in the -Ornithosauria homologous with the prepubic bones of the Ornithodelphia. - -So far as it is comparable with living animals, the ilium is altogether -avian, differing in being narrower; and the pubis and ischium are -mammalian. - -The upper anterior corner is the most elevated part of the acetabular -border, as in the great Auk and some birds of vertical position of -body, and many mammals. - - - FEMUR. - - Pl. 8. - - Case. Comp. Tablet. Specimen. - =J= _b_ 11 1-16 - -Twenty-six specimens are mounted to illustrate the Femur. 10 are -proximal ends; 16 distal ends. But in the series illustrative of -species is an entire specimen of a right Femur 4 inches long. Fragments -Nos. 3 and 12 show proximal and distal ends twice as large, but most of -the examples are about the size of the entire femur. - -It is a straight sub-cylindrical bone, flattened in front, a little -compressed from front to back distally, and (in one type) compressed -proximally from side to side behind. The distal articulation has a -broad shallow channel passing down from the front and imperfectly -separating two condyloid parts, which extend a little backward and -are divided behind. The outer condyle extends a little outward, 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 -mammals. Proximally the shaft contracts suddenly and is produced -upward, forward, and inward as a rounded neck, as long as in the femur -of any mammalian carnivore, which expands rapidly at the end to form -the hemispherical ball, which articulates with the pelvic acetabulum. - -No. 1 shows a well-marked pit for the ligamentum teres at the back part -of the ball. At the proximal end of the shaft below the neck is a large -pit for the obturator muscle, and at the outer front angle a great -trochanter. Proximally the bone can only be compared with the mammalian -Carnivora, Quadrumana and Man; distally it is avian and mammalian. - -In one genus exemplified by specimens 5-10 the obturator pit is not -developed. - -Sometimes the shaft is curved a little convexly, outward and forward. - - TIBIA. - - Pl. 8. - - Case. Comp. Tablet. Specimen. - =J= _b_ 12 1-11 - -Eleven specimens are mounted to illustrate the tibia, of which 1 to -9 are regarded as proximal ends; and 10, 11 with less confidence are -regarded as distal ends from which the distal epiphysis has come -away. 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 bird. - -The bone is at the proximal end straight and sub-cylindrical, slowly -enlarging proximally; convex behind, except for an elevated boss some -little way below the proximal articulation for the attachment of -powerful muscles. In front the shaft is a little flattened proximally, -with a mesial groove dividing two prominences which are apparently -homologous with the ridges below the patella in birds. The proximal -articular surface truncates the shaft at right angles except at what -is regarded as the outer front aspect, where it rises into a small -patelloid prominence. - -It shows the impressions of two condyles, which correspond in form with -the distal end of the Femur. - -Nos. 3 and 6 are regarded as left tibia; Nos. 4, 5, 7, 8, 9 as examples -of right tibia. - -No specimen likely to be a fibula has been found. In Dimorphodon and -in German Genera the fibula is Avian in form. The Crocodile offers -some approximation to the Pterodactyle shape in the proximal end of -the Tibia, but the Pterodactyle has Avian characters in addition. Its -straightness and length, ridges on the front and patelloid prominence, -are Avian. - - TARSUS OR TARSO-METATARSUS. - - Pl. 8. - - Case. Comp. Tablet. Specimen. - =J= _b_ 13 1 - -This fragment, which may be the distal end of the bone corresponding -to that called in birds the tarsus or tarso-metatarsus, is badly -preserved. Yet so close is its resemblance in form, structure, and -apposition of the constituent bones to what obtains among birds, -that it may probably be identified as the tarsus; while the peculiar -characteristics of Pterodactyle bones which it shows, demonstrate that -it is not from a bird, but from an Ornithosaurian skeleton. - -The bones are of paper thinness, and consist of a strong bone behind -which distally appears on the inner side to be compressed and thrown -backward and flattened at the side, exactly like the inner toe in -Natatorial birds. On the front of this strong support, confluent with -it, and confluent together, so that the places of union are only seen -at the distal end and in transverse section, are three bones, together -as wide as the bone on which they rest. It does not appear possible -that the distal articulations could have supported more than three -digits. - -This bone, if correctly determined, offers points of affinity -with birds as pronounced and as important as any thing shown by -the extremities, for among reptiles a welding of the (tarsal or) -tarso-metatarsal bones is unknown, and here it is as absolute as in any -bird, and takes a characteristic bird shape. In the Rodent Jerboa the -metatarsus has much the same form as in a bird. - -No phalanges have been recognised. - - -The Vertebral Column. - - ATLAS AND AXIS. - - Pl. 9. - - Case. Comp. Tablet. Specimen. - =J= _c_ 1 1-15 - -Fifteen specimens are mounted to exemplify the structures of the -Pterodactyle atlas and axis. Nos. 1, 11, and 2 have already been -figured, and described by Prof Owen, the latter as a section of a -cervical vertebra. - -The _atlas_ centrum, a saucer-shaped disk of bone, commonly united more -or less intimately with the centrum of the axis, but sometimes free. It -presents in front a hemispherical cup for the basi-occipital, and is -flattened or slightly convex behind. Its neural arch is seen in Nos. -2, 10, and 12; but the only specimen with the arch entire is in the -museum of James Carter, Esq. The neurapophyses vary in form and size, -but always are small obliquely flattened lamellar bones, which extend -upward and backward to meet the neural arch of the axis, just above the -neural canal, where a thin and small cross piece connects them together. - -The distinctive aspect of these bones is given by the neural arch of -the _axis_, which is very much elevated, and is formed by two flattened -sides, which meet in a vertical ridge above the neural canal, and look -forward, outward and upward; extending laterally more and more beyond -the side of the centrum, but not reaching so far back as the posterior -articulation of the centrum. Each side of the neural arch at its middle -part behind is produced into a thick obliquely flattened process, -the under portion of which shows the small posterior zygapophysial -facets, which look downward, outward and backward. The lateral outline -of the part of the neural arch above this process is concave; as is -the lateral outline between it and the centrum. Behind, the neural -arch is concave, and looks a little backward. The neural canal is -stirrup-shaped in front, but is higher and sub-ovate behind. The neural -arch of this, as of all the other vertebræ, except a few dorsals, is -inseparably united to the centrum, without a trace of the line of -union. In the middle of the side of the vertebra, and at what may be -presumed to be the union between the neural arch and the centrum, in a -concavity, is the pneumatic foramen. It is round or oval, and varies -in form and size though not in position. In No. 8 it exhibits the -subdivided reticular structure characteristic of the pneumatic foramina -of birds. In No. 10, which has a short centrum, the pneumatic cavities -are reduced to a few small perforations, no larger than would be made -with fine needles. - -The centrum is shorter than in cervical vertebræ, commonly convex -(No. 8) on the visceral surface; often with a slight longitudinal -hypapophysial ridge (Nos. 1; 7; 12) rarely flattened (No. 10). Towards -the hinder part the centrum widens, and becomes concave on the visceral -surface, sending off as do the other cervicals, below the transversely -elongated posterior articulation, a pair of short strong apophyses. - -The posterior articulation can only by a modification of the idea -be said to conform to the cup-and-ball plan, for though convex from -above downward and convex from side to side, the elongated transverse -measurement would be three times the depth. On the under side an -impressed transverse line divides the articulation from the concave -part of the centrum below. - - - Cervical Vertebræ. - - Pl. 9. - - Case. Comp. Tablet. Specimen. - =J= _c_ 2 1-43 - -Forty-three specimens are mounted to exemplify the variations in size -and characters of cervical vertebræ. These for the most part are -specific characters; and between the axis and the first dorsal vertebra -the variations in an individual were slight. [Those nearest to the -back, as in birds, are widest in front, and have the highest neural -arches.] The associated series show commonly four cervical vertebræ -behind the axis, and in two cases apparently five; never more. So that -as seven appears to be the number of true cervical vertebræ in most -if not all of the German Pterodactyles, it may be presumed that the -Cretaceous Ornithosaurians also had this character in common, with -Mammals, and probably as persistent. In Iguana there are 6, in Monitor -7, and in Crocodile 8. - -The centrum is united to the neural arch as in birds, without a trace -of suture; sometimes the neural arch is no wider than the centrum, -sometimes it extends over the centrum on each side. Those forms -with a narrow neural arch have the neural spine high, and its sides -look forward as well as outward. The pneumatic foramen is oblique. -An example is figured by Prof. Owen, in the memoir on Pterodactylus -simus, pl. 2, fig. 4. The forms with a wide neural arch have the neural -spine rising from the middle of the dorsal surface, erect and equally -compressed from side to side. The pneumatic foramen is horizontal. An -example is figured in Prof. Owen's memoir on Pt. simus, pl. 2, fig. 1. -These two forms of cervical vertebræ may be regarded as typifying two -genera. - -In both forms many characters occur in common, and as the specimens -illustrative of special modifications will be described hereafter, -the following description has been made to embrace the chief -characteristics of these vertebræ in Cretaceous Ornithosaurians. - -The inferior aspect of the centrum is oblong (being narrower than -long), or quadrate; when quadrate the additional lateral expansions are -external to the pneumatic foramina, and are formed by the neural arch -and zygapophyses. The centrum proper is a little wider in front than -behind, and the side outlines are concave. The base of the centrum is -flattened, or more or less hollow, or more or less tumid and regularly -convex; in front there is often a mesial ridge, which never reaches -the posterior articulation, and forms a prominent tubercle at the base -of the anterior articulation. At the posterior end the outline of the -centrum is concave, and mesially the bone has a hollow corresponding -to the tubercle in front of the adjacent vertebra; 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 -articulation; these posterior processes, in vertebræ in situ, fitted, -on each side of the mesial anterior process of the vertebra behind, on -to concavities more or less marked. Analagous processes are developed -in the cervical vertebræ of many birds. - -All the Cretaceous Pterodactyles have the articular surfaces of -the centrum transversely oblong, as have some birds. The posterior -articulation is convex from side to side, and convex from above -downward, and appears to extend a little further on this neural than -on the hæmal surface; in outline it is commonly an elongated oval, -but sometimes attends on the upper surface of the inferior lateral -tubercles. The anterior articulation is transversely elongated, concave -in both directions, and sub-triangular in outline; that is to say, the -superior outline is more or less convex, and from its limits to the -mesial tubercle at the base, the inferior outlines are more or less -concave. - -The neural canal is sub-circular or ovate in outline, and quite as -large as the neural canal in vertebræ of Dinornis of similar size. - -The neural arch like the centrum has commonly a depressed appearance. -It always has a neural spinous process which is directed upward. In -the depressed type the neural surface of the vertebra is in outline -usually sub-quadrate, but concave at each side, and concave in front -and behind; the four corners are the processes which support the -zygapophysial facets, the surface is divided into two lateral parts by -the strong neural spine. These lateral parts are from front to back -flat, or slightly concave, or slightly convex; and from the neural -spine outward they are always concave. The neural spine is commonly -sharp in front and flattened behind. The neural arch is placed well -forward, so that while a third of the neural canal remains uncovered by -it behind, rarely a sixth would be uncovered in front. - -The anterior and posterior zygapophyses are commonly connected by a -more or less rounded ridge, undefined above, but well defined below, -since under its posterior part at about the middle of the side of the -centrum is placed the pneumatic foramen. - -The anterior zygapophysial processes are separated from the anterior -articular surface of the centrum by a more or less oblique channel. -Towards the base of this channel in many vertebræ may be seen a small -and short flattened antero-posterior perforation corresponding in -position with the usually large perforation for the vertebral artery. -If the passages are to be regarded as having subserved such a function, -it will not be without interest to remark the small relative size of -the cerebellum in these animals; since the vertebral artery conveys the -blood to that region of the brain. - -The anterior zygapophyses are strong processes directed forward and -outward, compressed a little from side to side; they are placed at the -outer sides of the anterior articular face of the centrum, and extend -in front of it. - -The zygapophysial facet is commonly oval and looks upward and inward -and forward. - -The posterior zygapophyses are short and massive, but otherwise -correspond closely with the anterior zygapophyses, only with all the -parts reversed, and except that necessarily they are relatively to the -neural canal a little higher. - -A sharp and well defined angular ridge, commencing at the back of the -zygapophysis, is directed inward, and forward, and upward along the -posterior margin of the neural arch to the top of the neural spine. The -posterior aspect of the neural arch is concave from side to side, and -makes a right angle with the superior lateral aspect. - -The part of the centrum exposed behind the neural arch is convex above -from side to side. - -The pneumatic foramen between the centrum and the neural arch varies -greatly in size; it is oval and longitudinal. - -The largest specimens have the centrum 2-1/2 inches long; in the -smallest the centrum measures 5/8ths of an inch in length. - -In the second type of cervical vertebra the side of the centrum makes -a right angle with the base, and is separated from it by a sharp angle -as in struthious birds. The side of the centrum is concave, with a -few small pneumatic perforations; and the side of the centrum, which -is high posteriorly, rounds over the oblique ridge connecting the -zygapophyses, into the oblique lateral face of the neural arch. The -anterior zygapophyses are very large and the posterior zygapophyses -small and placed as high as the top of the neural canal. - -Every region of the vertebral column displays pneumatic foramina, -situated as in the vertebræ of birds. - -The large proportional size of the neck-vertebræ is common to some -birds, and is conspicuous in many mammals, like the Llama. In most -mammals where the vertebræ have a cup-and-ball articulation, the ball -is in front, as it is in the dorsal vertebræ of the penguin, so that -those vertebræ are not comparable with Pterodactyles, although on the -under side of the centrum they similarly give off a mesial process -below the cup, and a lateral process below the ball on each side. The -neural spine in Pterodactyle is commonly more developed than is the -case with long-necked birds or mammals. Reptiles such as Crocodiles and -Lizards have the neural spines of the neck-vertebræ well developed. -Birds differ from Pterodactyles in the peculiar articulation of their -vertebræ. In both the centrum is often depressed, in both it is concave -from side to side in front, and convex from side to side behind, but -in birds it is also convex from above downward in front, and concave -from above downward behind, while the reverse arrangement obtains in -Pterodactyles. A similar condition to that of the bird is seen in -the neck-vertebræ of the Kangaroo, of Man, and several mammals, only -the vertical curves are less marked. Vertebræ concave in front, and -convex behind, and devoid of cervical ribs, are met with among the -Lizards, but neither Monitor nor Iguana offer any parallel to the form -of the cervical vertebræ of Pterodactyle, which is best matched among -Marsupials and Birds. Birds commonly have more vertebræ in the neck -than have Pterodactyles, which in that respect resemble mammals and -some Lizards. - - - Dorsal Vertebræ. - - Pl. 10. - - Case. Comp. Tablet. Specimen. - =J= _c_ 3 1-20 - -Twenty specimens are mounted to exemplify pectoral and dorsal vertebræ. -Like the cervical vertebræ, they include two types of form, one with -the centrum flat, figured in pl. 2. fig. 20-22 of the memoir on -Pterodactylus Sedgwicki, and regarded by Prof Owen as anterior dorsal; -and the other form with a convex centrum, figured 24-25 of the same -plate of the same memoir, regarded by Prof. Owen as posterior dorsal. -Following the analogy of birds such determination is as well supported -as the similar reference of the two types of cervical vertebræ to -anterior and posterior parts of the neck, but fuller materials compel a -reference of the two types of dorsal vertebræ to two different genera. - - Nos. 1, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, 15, 19 belong to the flat type. Nos. - 2, 4, 5, 11, 12, 16, 17, 18 exemplify the convex type. - -Dorsal vertebræ are rare fossils; and in the associated sets of bones -never more than four dorsal vertebræ are found, rarely more than one. -No specimen of the type with a convex centrum occurs in the associated -sets. - -The dorsal vertebræ with convex centra have all lost their neural -arches except No. 2. The form of the centrum is half a cylinder, as -long, or longer than wide, but sometimes depressed, and wider behind -than in front. The exterior surface is smooth, convex from side to -side, and slightly concave from front to back. The neural surface is -mesially excavated. Both anterior and posterior articular surfaces are -semicircular or sub-ovate, being wide from side to side. - -The anterior articulation is cupped, concave from the neural to -the hæmal surface, and concave from side to side. The posterior -articulation is convex from the neural to the hæmal surface, in which -direction, it usually shows striations, and from side to side has a -gentle convexity, sometimes so slight as to be nearly flat. - -The neural canal is large, ovate, and as high as is the centrum. - -The neural arch is strong, compressed from back to front, and placed -as usual on the anterior part of the centrum. In outline it is -sub-rhomboid with the sides concave. There is a strong process on -each side above the neural canal for a rib, and apparently a neural -spine, but all are broken. The transverse processes for the ribs are -directed outward, and a little forward, flattened in front and behind, -the surfaces being sub-parallel, so that in front the neural arch -is concave from side to side. Behind, the neural spine is directed -between the transverse processes so as to over-hang the exposed part -of the superior surface of the centrum. At the points where the neural -spine bends back from the transverse processes are the posterior -zygapophyses, high above the neural canal, and parted from each other -by an interspace as wide as the canal is high. They look downward, -outward, and backward. The lateral surface below the transverse process -is narrow, flattened, bends at a right angle with the posterior -surface, rounds into the anterior surface, is a continuous curve with -the side of the centrum, and is concave from below upward. The superior -surfaces of the neural arch have the sides sub-parallel, they are -each concave from side to side; and these surfaces are excavated for -pneumatic foramina. - -Dorsal vertebræ of the type with the centrum flattened closely resemble -cervical vertebræ with the centrum flattened, differing chiefly in the -less length of the centrum. Occasionally (as in No. 3) the neural arch -comes away from the body of the vertebra. - -The centrum is very depressed, sub-quadrate, and wider than long; -the base is flat, or slightly concave, with occasionally a slight -longitudinal mesial ridge; the lateral outlines are concave, so that -the bone is pinched in from side to side. The neural surface of the -centrum is flat and parallel with the base, and, as usual, wider behind -than in front, but the centrum is not there so high. The surfaces for -the neural arch are flat, and extend nearly to the base of the centrum -in front, so that they look upward, outward and a little forward. - -The articular ends are remarkable for their depressed oblong character, -still preserving the anterior concavity with a small mesial process -below, as in cervical vertebræ, and similar but smaller processes -at the inferior outer angles of the posterior sub-semicylindrical -convexity. The middle third of the anterior cup is made by the -trapezoidal anterior end of the centrum; sometimes the sutures between -it and the neural arch are well marked. - -The neural arch is large, commonly with a sub-circular neural canal. -The neural spine is high, compressed so as to have the lateral surfaces -sub-parallel and rounding into each other superiorly; and it has a -less antero-posterior extent than the centrum. At its base behind -it widens rapidly, and forms massive quadrate processes, extending -outward and backward, which on the outside each have a flattened ovate -zygapophysial facet, which also looks downward. Above the facet and -separated from it by a groove is a tubercle. Between the zygapophyses -behind the bone is concave from side to side; the facets are placed -above the neural canal. - -The posterior zygapophyses are placed considerably higher than the -anterior zygapophyses, and the part of the neural arch between is -rather constricted from front to back. 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 downward. A ridge commencing at the -tubercle over the posterior zygapophysial facet descends in a curve -forward and downward, to form the posterior border of the anterior -zygapophysial process. This is separated by a groove from the anterior -articular surface, and anterior part of the base of the centrum, and -has the aspect of a compressed part of the neural arch, extending -obliquely downward, and forward, over and beyond the articular surface -of the centrum. The anterior zygapophysial facets are oblong, narrow -from side to side, and long from front to back; they are directed -forward and a little outward, and are flattened, make nearly a right -angle behind with the front of the neural arch, and look upward and -inward. They are sometimes placed as high as the top of the neural -canal, but are commonly lower. Around the neural canal the bone is -conically impressed. - -Minute pneumatic foramina are in the usual position, between the -centrum and the neural arch; and sometimes others behind the anterior -zygapophysial process. - -The largest specimen known has the centrum nearly an inch and a half -long. - -The dorsal vertebræ in Cambridge specimens would appear to make a -nearer approximation in number to birds than to Mammals or Lizards or -Crocodiles, though Chelonians have few vertebræ in the back. Among -Reptiles the form of the vertebra makes some approach to that of the -Monitor, Chameleon and Scink. In most Mammals the dorsal vertebræ have -the centrum convex, though in the lumbar region its visceral surface -often becomes flattened. But though very unlike there is a nearer -resemblance to the lower dorsal vertebræ of a Struthious bird. - - - Sacrum. - - Pl. 10. - - Case. Comp. Tablet. Specimen. - =J= _c_ 4 1-7 - -Seven specimens are mounted to exemplify the ordinary structures of the -Ornithosaurian sacrum. - -Nos. 1 and 2 have the centrum convex, exactly as in the dorsal vertebræ -of the convex type. Nos. 3-7 have the centrum flattened, following in -general features the plan of the dorsal vertebræ with flat centra. - -No. 1 is a vertebra from a sacrum, where perfect anchylosis had not -been induced; it has the neural arch well preserved, and shows the -sharp suture which united it to the preceding vertebra. - -No. 2 shows two entire vertebræ and part of a third, which have lost -the neural arches but have the centra perfectly anchylosed together. -The middle vertebra measures 5/8 of an inch in length, and at the -suture from side to side measures more. The surface is smooth, -regularly convex from side to side, and gently concave from back -to front. The last vertebra shows the articular vertebral surface; -it is convex in both directions, and oblique, so that a large part -looks upward. The anterior of the three vertebræ is pinched in at the -lower part of the sides of the centrum. No. 1 shows that the neural -surface of the centrum is deeply excavated, making the neural canal -an elongated upright oval. Above the centrum, which forms only the -middle third of the articular surface, the neural arch expands on each -side into a wedge-shaped transverse process, the lower surfaces are -flattened, and continuous with the centrum, while the upper surfaces -are flat and horizontal as in birds and Dinosaurs, and form the -platform from which arises the massive neural spine. - -In front the transverse wedge is flattened and compressed, so as -to look forward and outward, and in the middle shows a large ovate -pneumatic foramen. Behind, the wedge is compressed so as to look -backward and downward. - -The neural spine is massive and forms rather more than half the height -of the vertebra. It is flattened with a ridge rising near its base in -front and ascending in a concave curve obliquely backward and upward. -The anterior parts approximate a little in front, while the small parts -posterior to the ridge approximate a little behind. The sides of the -neural spine approximate superiorly, and appear to round into each -other. - -There is a notch on each side in front at the base of the neural spine, -and another above the central articulation. The neural spines appear to -have been united by suture. It may be instructive to compare the neural -spine just described with the specimens =J=. _c_. 10. - -Of the second type or genus No. 4 to 7 all show the anterior cup for -the last lumbar vertebra. No. 3, 5 and 6 all show two entire vertebræ -and part of a third preserved, but no specimen shows the posterior -termination of the sacrum. No. 7 has the articular face of the centrum -very broad, and greatly depressed. In No. 6 it is ovate and has the -neural arch preserved; above a semicircular neural canal it sends -out on each side a short horn-like zygapophysial process. No. 4 is -remarkable for the small size of the circular neural canal, the centrum -when entire measuring an inch from side to side, while the neural canal -only measures 5/16 of an inch. No. 5 is figured by Prof. Owen. No. 4-6 -appear to have given off transverse processes from the sides of the -centra. No. 7 appears to widen into transverse processes at the point -of suture between the centra. - -In No. 3 the base of the sacrum is flattened, and its sides pinched in, -and concave in outline from back to front. In this hollow are small -pneumatic foramina, and between the hollows the vertebræ widen in the -line of the suture so as to send out strong short transverse processes -or tubercles. Above the hollows are given out the strong horizontal -quadrate pyramidal transverse processes. All their sides are flattened -or a little concave, and the under side displays a large ovate -pneumatic foramen. Each of the four angles of the transverse process -gives off a ridge. The lower ones descend obliquely to the anterior -and posterior intersutural tubercles. The upper two ascend obliquely, -in front and behind, and form rounded ridges on the neural spine. The -neural spine is flattened, moderately compressed from side to side, and -cupped a little over each transverse process. In front the neural spine -is flattened transversely and perpendicular; the transverse processes -are also flattened and a little in advance of the neural spine. - -The sacrum in its general aspect is Mammalian. In the Bird the -vertebræ are much more numerous and do not retain their individuality -so well. In Reptiles properly so called, the sacrum never includes more -than two or three vertebræ, and those commonly remain unanchylosed. But -in almost any placental Mammal in which several vertebræ are anchylosed -together, a sacrum similar to that of the Pterodactyle is met with. No -mammalian sacrum, however, is furnished with pneumatic foramina. - - - Caudal Vertebræ. - - Pl. 10. - - Case. Comp. Tablet. Specimen. - =J= _c_ 5 1-13 - -Thirteen specimens are mounted to exemplify the osteology of caudal -vertebræ. No. 7 has been figured by Prof. Owen in the memoir on -Pterodactylus simus, pl. 2 fig. 13-16. The centrum of the largest -specimens measures one inch and a quarter long, and the vertebra -is half an inch wide from side to side in the middle. The smallest -specimen No. 13 has the centrum 3/4 of an inch long. The vertebræ vary -in proportions, some being much more slender than others. They present -a close approximation in form to the first type of cervical vertebræ, -differing chiefly in being more elongated. - -They are elongated bones constricted in the middle, so that the -outlines of the sides seen from above or below are gently concave; -the outline of the anterior end is sub-rhomboid, the outline of the -posterior end is sub-pentagonal, as would be a transverse section of -the vertebra. The long outlines of the base of the centrum and of the -top of the neural arch are sub-parallel. - -The two sides of the upper surface of the neural arch are smooth, -flattened, a little concave from back to front; they are inclined to -each other pent-house wise at about a right angle, and are separated -throughout their length by a narrow slightly elevated neural spine. -Behind, the neural arch is truncated transversely so as to expose -the posterior neural surface of the centrum, which is convex from -side to side. The outermost lateral angles of the neural arch are the -posterior zygapophysial processes, short and strong above the centrum, -with a tubercle on the upper surface, and showing the sub-circular -zygapophysial facets behind; they look backward and downward, and -are separated by a groove from the region of the centrum. Under the -sharp ridge which connects these zygapophyses behind, the neural arch -is excavated, and the cup shows the termination of three canals. The -largest one is the upright oval of the neural canal in the middle, -on each of its sides separated by a narrow bony wall is another -perforation, very variable in size and shape, sometimes b& large as the -neural canal, but usually small and circular. The anterior end of the -neural arch is cut into, so that as seen from above, the straight sharp -anterior margins diverge mesially from each other at a right angle, and -so expose to view a small anterior part of the neural surface of the -centrum. These lines are prolonged forward and outward, to form the -upper margin of the anterior zygapophyses, which are compressed and -prolonged over and beyond the sides of the anterior articulation, from -which they are separated by a slight groove; the anterior and posterior -zygapophyses are connected by a rounded ridge. The anterior end of the -neural arch is excavated, but less so than the posterior end; in the -middle is the oval perforation of the neural canal, and at the sides -other perforations corresponding to those behind are placed a little -in advance of the neural canal. The anterior and posterior articular -surfaces differ in no respect from those of cervical vertebræ. - -The inferior surface of the centrum is separated from the sides by two -ridges parallel to the lateral concave outlines of the neural arch; -they extend from sides of the front, more or less well marked, to the -tubercular processes at the base of the sides of the centrum behind. -The dice-box shaped area of the centrum so inscribed is usually concave -from front to back, and concave from side to side behind, and convex -from side to side in the middle; this convexity is only broken in front -by the development of the slight mesial hypapophysial ridge. - -The sides are narrow, flattened, look downward and outward, are a -little concave from front to back, round into the centrum and into the -neural arch, and show at about the middle a small pneumatic foramen, -which is variable in size, but largest in No. 8, and sometimes a mere -puncture. - -The caudal vertebræ differ in many ways from other animals. They -have neither transverse processes, neural spines, hypapophyses or -hæmapophyses. In the persistence of the neural arch down the tail they -resemble reptiles and birds rather than mammals, in which nothing but -the centrum persists to the end of the tail. The vertebræ are furnished -with vertebral arteries which run through the neural arch parallel to -the neural canal, in exactly the same position as do the vertebral -arteries in the neck-vertebræ of the Llama. - - - - -THE BONES OF THE HEAD. - -Pl. 11, 12. - -The skull of Dimorphodon differs in form and in many important details -of structure from that of Rhamphorhynchus; and both of these types of -skull are strikingly unlike that of the short-tailed animals named -Pterodactyle. Hence, as it will be shown that the Cretaceous fossils -of this class belong to very distinct new genera, there is no reason -for assigning to them by anticipation any class of cranial structures. -The cranium of this type of animal has never been critically described, -and for all that is yet known to the contrary Pterodactyles may differ -between themselves as much as birds or mammals. Their affinities have -been unknown. Therefore, before describing bones it may be desirable -to state the grounds on which the several specimens are referred to -the Ornithosauria. The fossils on which this section of the memoir is -founded are, the basi-occipital and basi-temporal bones, the anterior -portion of a cranium, the back parts of four crania, facial bones, and -the quadrate and quadrato-jugal. - -The crania are all no larger than that of the Heron; though from -the Greensand are bones and jaws indicating Pterodactyles both -smaller and larger. The skulls are mostly remarkable for wanting -both basi-occipital and basi-temporal bones. And the specimen of -basi-temporal and basi-occipital corresponds posteriorly with the -Pterodactyle atlas, anteriorly with these crania; it is hence concluded -to have belonged to a similar animal. Being relatively twice as -large, it indicates that in these animals the basi-occipital condyle -was proportionally larger than in known birds; and that animals of -a cognate kind had skulls probably twice the size of these. The -anterior basal part of the hinder sphenoid terminates in a remarkable -triangular surface, with two perforations, which are separated by a -median ridge. Almost entirely corresponding with this is the basal -surface of the anterior part of a cranium, fractured in front of the -pituitary fossa. Therefore, and as it indicates a similar capacity of -brain, it is regarded as belonging to the same kind of animal as the -others ; but being five times the size, it must, if the proportions of -the Heron were preserved, have been part of a head a yard long. - -Now, as there is no other animal with the same texture of bone, or -exhibiting with high organization the same diversity of size, these -cranial fragments are referred to the jaws and bones of Pterodactyle. -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 anatomist. - - - Basi-occipital and Basi-temporal. - - Pl. 11. - - Basi-occipital, Owen, _Sup. Cret. Rep._ p. 6, T. 1, figs. 11, 12, 13. - - Case. Comp. Tablet. - =J= _c_ 7 - -This bone was not found associated with any set of fossils that -would induce us to refer it to one species more than to another. Its -Ornithosaurian character was probable; and Prof. Owen described it in -his last memoir on the Greensand Pterodactyles. - -But though indubitably basi-occipital, it is so anomalous in some -respects that the Professor regarded the under as the upper surface; -since then the investing phosphate of lime has been removed, and the -bone is now described in what appears to be its natural position. - -Viewed from above the fossil divides into two parts; the occipital -condyle, and an anterior, wide, transversely oblong extension -terminating at each side in a strong short horn. The posterior half -of the condyle shows large cancelli as though so much of it had been -covered by the articular cartilage. The sides of the condyle converge, -so that posteriorly it is only two-thirds of the width it has at the -foramen magnum, which would appear to indicate a comparatively slight -lateral motion of the head. The condyle is hemispherical posteriorly -and superiorly; there is a depression between it and the great foramen -of the skull; inferiorly it is flat. - -It is 7/16 of an inch long; posteriorly 9/16 wide, nearly 6/16 of an -inch high anteriorly. It terminates in front superiorly in an elevated -transverse ridge. - -On removing the matrix, the anterior surface of this occipital bone -was found to be concave; yet as nothing but cancellous structure is -seen it may be but imperfectly ossified or more probably, imperfectly -preserved. And the bottom of this cup expands forward in a thin sheet -of bone a quarter of an inch long and half an inch wide, which on the -under side is continuous with the base of the condyle. - -On each side of this floor and partly extending in front of it, and -below it, is an irregular piece of bone, half an inch long, resembling -anterior zygapophyses of cervical vertebræ. - -Though in most vertebrates the basi-occipital enters into the basal -floor of the skull, the median bones are either so placed that they -rest one upon another from before backwards or abut against one another -nearly perpendicular, so that the basi-sphenoid comes commonly to -underlap and partly hide the basi-occipital. Nowhere among Amphibia or -Reptilia do I know of the reverse position occurring. In some fishes -there is an approach to it. Thus a slight anterior bony expansion of -the basi-occipital in the Cod fits partly into a horizontal slit in -the basi-sphenoid[A]. In the Carp the basi-occipital has a spathulate -basal expansion like that of Pterodactyle, but it is underlapped by the -basi-sphenoid[S]. In some mammals the under side of the basi-occipital -extends further forward than does the neural side, as for example -in the Sheep and Goat; while in a few others, as in the Walrus, the -reverse positions obtain. - -[Footnote S: Parasphenoid of Prof. Huxley.] - -But it is among Birds that the structure described in Pterodactyle -is evident and characteristic. For although the bony plate under the -sphenoid,--Mr Parker's basi-temporals,--is mostly anchylosed to the -bones about it, and less with the occipital than with others, its -position and relations are quite the same as those of the expanded flap -of this Pterodactyle basi-occipital. Therefore it is identified with -the basi-temporal bones. - - - Back of the Cranium. - - Pl. 11. - - Case. Comp. Tablet. Specimen. - =J= _c_ 8 1 - -This fossil is an inch high, rather wider, and half an inch long. It -well shows the bones at the back of the skull, the basi-cranial bones, -and the bones posterior to the frontals, which roof in the Cranium. -There are in it striking resemblances to the back of the skull of some -Natatores, as the Grannet and Cormorant, and of some Grallatores as the -Heron, and Gallinaceous birds as the Cock. - -_The base of the skull._ The bones here indicated are the -basi-occipital, basi-temporal, and basi-sphenoid. The former two -have come away as from an articular joint, and are wanting. The -basi-occipital does not enter into the floor of the cranial cavity, and -only rims the foramen magnum. But its basi-temporal expansion rests -beneath the posterior part of the basi-sphenoid forming the base of the -skull; its long convex anterior end fits into the concave groove at the -back of the anterior part of the sphenoid. The squamous basi-temporal -bone appears in this species to have been as long as the foramen magnum -is wide, and to have been relatively thicker than in the other form -already described. - -The _basi-sphenoid_ is a thin expanded bone forming the floor for the -cerebellum, and terminating anteriorly in a triangular mass, while the -slightly convex part behind, covered with the basi-temporals, is nearly -square. It enters into the foramen magnum, forming its lower part; -and is confluent with the ex-occipitals behind, with the periotic, -alisphenoid and perhaps with the squamosal at the side; and as in birds -all these sutures are obliterated. 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 bone. The -anterior part of the basi-sphenoid projects below the posterior part, -is nearly flat on the basal surface, and forms an equilateral triangle -with the apex in front and base behind. In the middle of the triangular -bone is a slight longitudinal ridge, and behind the middle of each -outer side a rather large foramen which appears to be the inferior -opening for the carotid artery. The triangular part is hollow and as -long as the quadrate portion. The lateral parts of this anterior bone -are nearly flat. They converge upwards and are rounded in front to -form the boundary of the pituitary fossa, and do not appear to have -terminated in a spine. Above are the alisphenoids. - -_The upper part of the skull_ is divided into two segments by a strong -straight transverse ridge, which leaves the occipital bones behind, and -the parietal &c. in front. - -The occipital bones anchylosed together are about two-thirds the width -of the foramen magnum, and of the parietal bones, with which latter the -supra-occipital makes an angle of 45°. The surface is irregular, and -especially is marked by a deep concavity just above each ex-occipital. -The supra-occipital projects slightly over the plane of the foramen -magnum, to which the strong ridge bounding the segment in front is -parallel. The great foramen is nearly round, being slightly compressed -at the upper part of the sides: it measures 3/8 of an inch high and is -nearly as wide. - -The _occipital bones_ make with those at the base of the skull an -angle of about 145° or 150°. In outline they are a transverse diamond -shape. The mastoid portion is not to be distinguished from the other -bones, but appear to terminate the sides of the strong occipital -crest, which by posterior compression of the squamosals and parietals, -becomes very strong, and makes the backward boundary of the temporal -foss. This crest is in the same plane with the anterior border of the -basi-temporals. - -The _parietals_ meet above in a slight ridge. They are two rectangular -bones twice as wide as long, forming a semicircular roof for the brain, -which looks outward and a little backward. Anteriorly these bones -unite with the frontals in a slightly flexuous transverse line; and -inferiorly they are connected with the periotic, the squamosal, and -perhaps with the anterior point of the alisphenoid: they do not descend -to the plane of the articulations of the free quadrate bones. The -surface is smooth, and on the upper part flat, but concave below from -side to side. - -Below these parietals are the _squamosals_ and _alisphenoids_, but the -suture between them is not seen. They are in form a trapezium where -the short side is anterior, and the lower third is folded inward so as -to be confluent with the anterior part of the sphenoid. The fold forms -a ridge, which I suppose may run obliquely over the alisphenoid. The -unfolded squamosal part is a flat and smooth oblong, with parallel -sides, the bones are in parallel planes and nearly perpendicular to the -base of the skull. Where the alisphenoid joins the sphenoid, there is -a considerable concavity, above which is a small circular impression. -These strips approximate inferiorly, so that the width of the skull -there is rather more than half what it is at their outer margins. They -shut off the pituitary body in front of them, and appear to form part -of the wall for the orbit of the eye.--The slightly convex, lateral, -squamosal parts above the fold continue the circular transverse outline -of which the parietals are the upper half. They extend anterior to the -parietals, and on the inside give attachment to the frontals. Like the -parietals, they make a sharp bend outward at their hinder border, and -form the lateral terminations of the occipital ridge, which is the -widest part of this fossil. - -The only portion of the specimen now to be described is the large -region at each side looking downward, which extends from the occipital -ridge to the sphenoid. It is an irregular pentangular hollow with many -cavities, the hinder of which are for the ear. Two cavities above -these, under the widest part of the skull, appear to be a double -articulation for the quadrate bone. The outer transverse one with -the squamosal is separated by a deep groove from the inner and more -vertical one, which may therefore be regarded as with the petrosal -bone. These excavations form the posterior half of the pentagon. The -anterior half is a smooth rhombus not separable from the basi-sphenoid. - -Such is the external appearance of the occipital and parietal segments -of the skull of a Cambridge Pterodactyle. Each segment forms a large -ring of thin bone, inclosing part of a brain-cavity as large as that -of a bird and shaped like that of a bird; and which moreover is made -up of the same bones as the cranium of a bird; and these are in almost -exactly the same proportions as those of the Common Cock. - -My own investigations do not substantiate Wagner's discovery, that the -back part of the skull resembles that of the Monitor. Iguana would -have offered a slightly nearer comparison, but they both differ from -Cambridge specimens of Pterodactyles in characters like these. - -In the lizard, - - The cranial bones do not enclose the brain. - - There is no division of the back of the skull into an occipital - segment and a parietal segment by a girdling crest. - - The squamosal bone does not enter into the cranial wall. - - The quadrate bone does not articulate with the wall of the brain-case. - -While the peculiar backward development of wings of the parietal in a -diverging V form, give the Lizard skull an aspect of its own. - -So that it must be asserted that the differences of these Pterodactyles -from Lizards are so wide as to preclude comparison. - -With the Crocodile, in which the cranial bones are massive, and the -quadrate bone firmly packed in the skull, comparison would be no less -difficult. - -The Delphinidæ, in both the form of the jaws and of the back of the -head, give some support to Wagler's fancy, in putting the Pterodactyle -into his curious creation, the Gryphi[T]. But in the porpoises the -parietal bones form as narrow a band as they do in the Duck; and are -quite unlike the bones here described. In the Dolphin the two condyles -almost unite into one semicircular condyle (in young specimens), owing -to the enormous development of the ex-occipitals, which almost if -not entirely exclude the basi-occipital from the foramen magnum. The -dolphin moreover has no quadrate bone. But notwithstanding the absence -of a division into occipital and parietal segments, the form and -arrangement of the bones in the skull of the porpoises approximate more -to the Cambridge Pterodactyles than is the case with Lizards. - -[Footnote T: The Gryphi are a class of animals intermediate between -Birds and Mammals according to Wagler, and including Pterodactyles, -Ichthyosaurus, Plesiosaurs, Ornithorhynchus, and Myrmecophaga.] - -But with Birds the correspondence is so close that it would be -difficult to discover differences. That one of the condition of the -occipital bone seems to be the most important; another is, that from -the relatively smaller size of the cerebellum the parietal bones appear -to cover a larger part of the cerebrum; and a third is the strong -triangular condition of the sphenoid in front of the sella tursica. -With these exceptions there is nothing to distinguish the fossil -described from the cranium of a bird. - - - Back of another Cranium. - - Pl. 11. fig. 1, 2. - - Case. Comp. Tablet. Specimen. - =J= _c_ 8 2 - -Another cranium has occurred which must be referred to a different -genus. Its preservation is less perfect, but it similarly exhibits the -occipital and parietal segments of the skull. All the bones are blended -together without a trace of a suture. - -The _occipital region_ is flat. Its outline is not defined owing to -the extent to which the sharp crest, in which it terminated outwardly, -has been broken away. The occipital condyle is broken off. The foramen -magnum is of an ovate form--flattened at the base. The ex-occipitals at -its sides are impressed as though from contact with the neurapophyses -of the atlas. Mesially, over the foramen magnum is a vertical elevated -crest (now rubbed away), which may have given attachment to a bone -like that post-superoccipital crest described by Quenstedt in the -_Pterodactylus suevicus_. The occipital region makes a great angle with -the flat basi-temporal region, as in birds. - -The _parietal region_ is convex from below upward, the lateral parts -converging towards the crown, which however presents a broken and -worn surface. From side to side the squamosal and parietal bones are -concave, owing to the extended occipital crest behind, and the rapid -widening of the skull in front caused by the large size of the brain. - -In _front_ is seen a section of the brain-cavity. It is very like in -form to the two halves of a pear put together side by side with the -stalk downward. I have removed some of the phosphate of lime from the -brain-cavity, and although it has not been excavated to the cerebellum, -the great depth of the brain is well seen, and the convex character of -the cerebral lobes, between which a crest of bone descends mesially as -in the ethmo-sphenoid mass next described. At each of the lower outer -angles of the brain, extending into the cancellous brain-walls to the -outermost film, is an ovoid convexity, covered with a thin film of -bone. They entirely correspond with the optic lobes, being in exactly -the same position as in birds, only relatively rather small. Underneath -the optic lobe on the outside is a small concavity, apparently the -articulation for the quadrate bone. The basi-sphenoid mass below the -brain is of considerable height, the upper half flat and smooth, the -lower half fractured and cancellous. - -In the main this skull is like the other one, differing chiefly in the -depth of the sphenoid, in the mesial ridge between the cerebral lobes, -in showing the optic lobes, and in having anchylosed basi-temporal -bones. There would hence appear to have been considerable variations in -the skulls of Pterodactyles even in the Cambridge Greensand. - - - Orbito-ethmo-sphenoid bone. - - Pl. 11. - - Case. Comp. Tablet. - =J= _c_ 9 - -The symmetrical bone which I have so named is a wedge-like mass -tapering in front, keeled above; flattened below, and cupped behind -on each side. It belonged to a very much larger animal than the last -fossil, and probably to a very different genus. - -The _inferior surface_ is triangular, an inch and an eighth wide -behind, at the base, and an inch and a quarter long; but it is broken -at both ends. In its longitudinal median line is a strong keel stopping -short in front, dying away behind, and forming with the compressed -margins a considerable hollow on each side, at the back part of which -is a large oval foramen. This surface, though five times the size, -corresponds in form, ridges, and foramina with the anterior part of the -sphenoid described in the article on the back of the cranium. - -The _posterior surface_ is at right angles to the inferior one, but its -lower third shows only fractured phosphate of lime filling perhaps the -anterior part of the pituitary fossa. Its upper part also is broken. -But on each side is a large concavity measuring in the fractured fossil -an inch and a quarter high, three quarters of an inch wide, and half -an inch deep from the unbroken median ridge where the cups become -confluent at their base. The whole specimen is two and a quarter inches -high. From the determination of the under side it follows that these -smooth hollows, over each of which an impressed mesial line descends -obliquely outward, are a part of the anterior boundary of the brain. - -From the middle of the outer convex border of the oval remains of -these cups for the cerebral hemispheres, 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 sphenoid. Above this ridge the bone is much compressed anteriorly, -forming a strong straight mesial keel above, which rapidly approximates -to the base; the height of the bone in front being one inch and a half, -which is also its extreme length. - -The region below the oblique ridge is a concavity, but it is a little -compressed from side to side behind, and has the same anterior -compression, so that the elongated oval of the fracture at the anterior -end of the bone is only three-eighths of an inch wide. - -The superior ridge will probably have supported the frontals, and the -anterior end would terminate in the orbito-sphenoid. - -The lateral ridges appear to correspond with what Prof. Huxley has -described in the Ostrich as the ridge indicative of a supra-presphenoid -ossification pointed out by Kölliker. The groove which is here noticed -on the cerebral surface may indicate the same division. If so, the -upper and anterior part of the mass would be the ethmoid. - -This mass offers a considerable resemblance to the frontal portion -of the skull of a dolphin (_e. g._ Delphinus delphis) from which the -maxillary, premaxillary, palatine and nasal bones have been removed. -But in the Porpoise the mesial ridge dividing the cerebral hemispheres -is not prolonged so far forward as in the Pterodactyle; the cranial -bones are often as smooth on the inside. Notwithstanding Wagner's -assurance that the Pterodactyle skull is very like a Monitor's, he -would have looked in vain for an ossification in Monitor, Iguana, or -other Lizards, comparable with this mass. And although the brain is -closed in front by bones in Serpents, it is by the frontal bones, -which form a covering for nearly the whole of the conical cerebrum. -Nor in the Crocodile is there any ossified mass in front of the brain, -although the brain approximates nearer to Birds than is the case with -other living Reptiles. Among Birds such a structure as that of the -Pterodactyle is characteristic, but no bird has it so massive and -mammal-like, though an approximation is made in some thick-skulled -birds like _Ciconia marabou_. And in birds it usually is prolonged much -further forward than appears to have been the case with Pterodactyle, -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 beak. In Birds there is usually a median ridge dividing the -cerebral hemispheres, but there is also often a small olfactory lobe -prolonged in front of the cerebrum, to which nothing analogous is -indicated in these fossils. - - - - -NATURAL MOULD OF THE BRAIN CAVITY OF A CAMBRIDGE ORNITHOSAURIAN[U]. -(Cast.) - -Pl. 11. - -[Footnote U: For the opportunity of making this description, I am -indebted to the kindness of John Francis Walker, Esq., M.A., F.G.S., -F.C.S., &c., who some time since forwarded to me the whole of his rarer -Ornithosaurian remains for description in the Geological Magazine,] - -The original specimen is in the collection of J. F. Walker, Esq., of -Sidney Sussex College. When found it only displayed the front of the -cerebral hemispheres, and Mr. Walker generously gave me permission to -remove the investing cancellous bone and phosphate of lime, and thus -exhibit the form of the cerebrum and its relations to the cerebellum. -The lower part of the brain is not preserved. But adherent to the sides -of the fossil are still left parts of the temporal bones, and part of -the bone at the back of the orbit which closes in the brain. The form -of the cerebellum is not quite perfect behind, but it must have been -unusually small. - -The cerebral lobes taken together are much wider from side to side than -from back to front, and have a transverse elliptical outline, except -for the mesial notch behind for the cerebellum. The lobes are a little -flattened above, and divided from each other by a deep mesial groove, -which makes each lobe convex from side to side. They are well rounded -at the front and at the sides, and are a little compressed towards each -other below in the region of the orbits. Behind they become covered -superiorly as in birds with a greatly thickened part of the squamosal -and parietal bones. The surface of the cerebrum is smooth. There is -no indication of a pineal gland. The cerebellum is small, like a pea -between two filberts. It is sub-hemisphercal, is placed close against -the cerebrum, and appears to give off narrow lateral parts, like -those seen in many birds, only that they abut against the back of the -cerebral lobes as in the Hare and some Mammals. In no reptile is there -a brain in which the cerebrum embraces the front of the cerebellum, -or in which it attains to such an enormous size. FÅ“tal Mammals (_e. -g._ the horse and the sheep), even when they have attained to a -considerable bulk, and many adult mammals, still have the optic lobes -dividing the cerebrum from the cerebellum as in Reptiles. - -The only Mammal which shows any near approximation to this brain is -the _Ornithorhynchus_, in which the cerebellum is very small, but the -cerebrum is not so well rounded in front. The form approximates to -the brain in Man. 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 ones. A section of -the cerebrum in this specimen entirely corresponds with a section of -the brain-cavity in the second skull described, as does the backward -extension of the cerebrum with the extent of the cerebral cavity, and -the narrow cerebellum with the narrow channel parallel to the walls -of the foramen magnum, as in _Gallus domesticus_ and Birds. The front -of the brain corresponds with the cast of the front of the cerebral -lobes taken from the Ethmo-sphenoid mass. Thus the specimens agree -among themselves, and prove the Pterodactyle to have had a brain -indistinguishable from that of a Bird. And when it is remembered how -distinctive this kind of brain is, and that it approximates rather -towards the higher Mammals than towards Reptiles, the fact attains -unusual importance in determining the Pterodactyle's place in nature. - - - -?NEURAL ARCH OF SACRAL VERTEBRA, ?VOMER. - -Pl. 12. - - -Frontal(?) Owen. _Palæontographical_, 1859 - -Pl. 4, fig. 6, 7, 8. - - Case. Comp. Tablet. Specimen. - =J= _c_ 10 1-3 - -In 1859 Prof. Owen described with doubt as the Frontal -of Pterodactyle, a symmetrical bone. A smaller but more perfect -specimen has since been obtained for the Woodwardian -Museum; and a fragment of intermediate size is in the rich -collection of the Rev. T. G. Bonney. From the descriptions -already given it is impossible for it to be the frontal. There -is no proof that it is a skull bone. If of Pterodactyle the -compressed lateral spaces could only be part of the nasal passages, -or the impressions of a palatine or pterygoid articulation. -And as the external surface of every specimen is keeled, and -as the palatal surface of the upper jaw of every known Greensand -Pterodactyle is keeled, and as the concavities slightly converge -to the keel, it might be a bone from the under side of the -head,--the vomer. - -The smallest specimen is a compressed sub-semicircular bone -1-1/4 inch long, 9/16 inch high, and a 1/4 inch thick. The under surfaces -converge to form a strong keel, which is flattened off behind. -Above this, the posterior third of the bone is compressed -obliquely to half the thickness, as though a bone had over-lapped -this area on each side. If the oval spaces are nares, that -bone might have been the pterygoid or palatine. Three-fifths -of the remainder of the bone are taken up by the smooth oval -depressions, which might be the inner walls of the nares; and above -this is a margin of bone widening into the triangular compressed -part in front, which, if the fossil is rightly determined, must have -fitted into the posterior end of the maxillary or anterior end of -the palatine bones. - -A specimen collected by the Rev. T. G. Bonney is preserved on -the sacral side of a left _os innominatum_ with the keel downward. -It appears to show a sutural surface from which an anterior part -has come away. And if this specimen is compared with the -neural arch of the sacral vertebra =J=._c_.4.1, it will be found to -correspond entirely. It is not impossible that _c_.10.1, 2 may be -vomerine, and _c_.10.3 sacral, but there are no distinctive characters -between the specimens to warrant such a determination. - - - QUADRATUM. - - Pl. II. - - and Quadrato-Jugal. - - Case. Comp. Tablet. Specimen. - =J= _c_ 11 1-4 - -In the Woodwardian Museum are two distal ends of the quadrate bone and -two other fragments showing the quadrato-jugal with it. - -_Quadrate._ The smallest specimen is 1/2 an inch over the articular -surface for the lower jaw and a quarter of an inch thick. It is concave -from side to side in front where it shows a large pneumatic foramen -near the basal end; it is bent from the articulation a little backward. -It is convex behind; and between the foramen and the articulation sends -inward and forward a great wing like that of the quadratum in birds. -The specimens are broken short off and do not show any articulation -above, where the bone contracts. - -The distal articulation is double, like two long cones placed together; -that in front having the base outward, while the hinder one has the -base on the inner side. The largest specimen, which is much broken, -shows the articulation half an inch thick. - -_Quadrato-jugal._ This is a thin flat squamous bone, apparently of a -transverse diamond shape, which is anchylosed to the anterior lateral -margin of the quadrate, at right angles to the articulation. The lower -margin is straight, as is the upper anterior margin, which appears to -have received the malar bone above. - -The upper posterior side is broken, but shows a large foramen near -to the side of the quadrate. The base of the diamond is at the -articulation, and at its apex is a small fragment of smooth surface, -either part of a foramen, or the orbit of the eye. - -In this specimen the articulation, which is broken, is about 3/4 of an -inch wide, 3/8 of an inch thick. The remaining piece of the quadrate is -an inch long. The quadrato-jugal is an inch and 3/16 high, and between -its broken ends 1-3/4 inch long. It is thick and strong where joining -the quadrate, but the rest of the bone is about an 1/8th of an inch -thick. - -The quadrate bone is Avian in possessing a pneumatic foramen, and Avian -in the form of so much of the distal end as is preserved, and in the -articulation for the lower jaw. The process which it sends inward on -the inside is probably for the pterygoid bone, after the manner of -Birds. Before anchylosis with the quadrato-jugal bone set in, as may -be seen in =J=._c_.11.4, the union was made by a hemispherical knob on -the outside of the quadrate, as in _Gallus domesticus_. The squamose -quadrato-jugal is a distinctive character. - - - ?PTERYGOID END OF PALATINE BONE. - - Pl. 12. - - Case. Comp. Tablet. Specimen. - =J= _c_ 14 1-2 - -This determination is conjectural. Its form is such as would make it -probable that it is part of the head. A more perfect specimen is seen -in =J=._c_.1.2.7. - -The best specimen is a compressed sub-quadrate fragment of bone -terminating at one end in a long reniform articular surface, and at -the other end in a fracture where the bone is rapidly thickening. A -side, regarded as the outer one, is flattened, being slightly concave -in length, and slightly convex from side to side. The form of the -inner side of the bone is determined by the inward curve of the thick -part of the articular surface, which sends a rounded ridge obliquely -on to the side, so that while it is concave from side to side at the -articulation, at the fracture it is convex from side to side. All the -specimens are large, the articulation being not less than an inch long. - - - PREMAXILLARY BONES - - Pl. 12. - -appear to be developed as in birds. An account of their structure will -be found in the notes on the species, page 112. - - ------------ - - OS ARTICULARE AND PROXIMAL END OF LOWER JAW. - - Pl. 12. - - Case. Comp. Tablet. Specimen. - =J= _c_ 12 1-6 - -Prof. Owen has described in a 'Palæontographical' monograph the -proximal end of a mandible in which the sutures are obliterated. -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 groove; and on -the surangular the greater part of the articular bone rests. The -articulation is strong and double, consisting of a deep transverse -hollow, bounded by a strong over-locking ridge in front and a slight -ridge behind; and this area is divided into two tapering furrows by -a strong oblique and rounded crest, which passes from behind inward -and forward. Just behind the articulation is a ?pneumatic aperture, -and then the upper surface tapers to the under surface, forming a -heel, of which one specimen measuring an inch deep on the inside of -the articulation has 3/4 of an inch still left and is more than 1/4 -inch thick at the fracture. In a specimen belonging to the Rev. T. G. -Bonney the outside of the jaw is 11/16 of an inch deep, and under the -articulation 5/16 of an inch deep. The articular area is 3/4 of an inch -wide and 6/16 of an inch long. - -Seven specimens indicate four species. - -The proximal end of the lower jaw is entirely Avian. The pneumatic -aperture, as in birds, is placed behind the articulation, which is -shaped as in many birds. Commonly in Ornithosaurians the bones are -anchylosed and all trace of sutures obliterated, as in most birds. In -the Goose, however, the six elements of each side are sometimes as -readily separated as in reptiles. And in some Pterodactyles the bones -separate. - - -THE DENTARY BONE - -Pl. 12. - -The dentary bone consists of a single piece, as in birds and -chelonians; and differs from both in being provided with teeth. It is -described under the species O. machærorhynchus, page 113. - - ------------ - - THE TEETH. - - Pl. 12. - - Case. Comp. Tablet. Specimen. - =J= _c_ 17 1-39 - -The first three teeth are usually larger than those which are -placed behind them, in this respect rather resembling some fossil -reptiles than Dolphins, and presenting a character like that seen -in the Dimorphodon. They are placed in oblique oval sockets. They -have a single fang like Cetaceans, Edentates, Reptiles, and like -the premaxillary teeth of Mammals. Cambridge specimens of jaws are -not sufficiently perfect to show whether the teeth are limited -to the premaxillary bone; but this appears to be the case in -_Pterodactylus crassirostris_ (Goldf.), and probably in _Ornithocheirus -compressirostris_ (Owen), [_Palæontographical Society_, 1851, Pl. 27], -and is so regarded by Professor Owen in his later writings. Yet the -significance of this fact seems to have been forgotten, and Cuvier's -dictum about their teeth still has influence. He says, "The teeth, by -which the examination of an animal ought always to be commenced, here -present nothing equivocal. They are all simple, conical, and nearly -alike, as in the crocodiles, monitors, and other lizards." But, on the -one hand, the Dolphins demonstrate that a mammal might have similar -teeth even in the maxillary bone; and, on the other hand, since teeth -in the premaxillary bone always are single-fanged, and commonly have -a simple sub-conical crown, there is absolutely no evidence in the -teeth of the affinities of the animal, which, so far as this portion -of its economy went, might as well have been a fish or a mammal as -anything else. In the succession there is nothing very distinctive. -In the Crocodile one tooth comes up under another, as is commonly -the case with mammals; and in mammals the fangs of the old teeth are -often partially absorbed so that the teeth drop out into the mouth. In -the Pterodactyle the new teeth came up on the inner side, as in the -Ichthyosauria--a tribe of animals as singular in their affinities as -the Ornithosauria. Occasionally specimens show a small furrow on the -inner side of the fang, indicating absorption, but there is nothing -to show how many times the teeth were renewed: in the Dolphins there -is but one set, and in Crocodiles the teeth are replaced many times. -In form and size the teeth are very variable. They are directed -obliquely forward, and are curved backward and inward. They taper -in an elongate cone, compressed from side to side, flattened on the -outside, moderately convex on the inside; rarely the sides meet in a -ridge after the plan of Pliosaurus, Megalosaurus, Dakosaurus, &c.; -more frequently the lateral margins round into each other. Usually -the enamel is quite smooth, sometimes, as in No. 1, it is finely -striated and wrinkled. Some teeth are nearly circular and some quite -straight. The ovate fang contracts below, conically, and is closed, -leaving a long hollow pulp-cavity in its interior. Nos. 9, 10 show the -marks of the successional teeth on their inner sides. No. 11 appears -to have had the crown slightly worn at the tip during the animal's -lifetime. In transverse section of the crown the tooth structure -resembles Ichthyosaurus, Cetaceans, and Bats. The dentine is filled -with calciferous tubes which radiate as in Ichthyosaurus, and towards -the centre of the tooth are seen in transverse section to present -many angles, almost like radiated corpuscles. They are separated by -interspaces of their own width, and run towards the circumference, -sometimes straight and sometimes wavy, parallel to each other. They -send off branches usually at right angles which anastomose with the -adjoining tubes. The dentine is in concentric layers, and shows layers -of sub-circular cells as in the teeth of Mammals. The enamel is a thin -transparent layer with fewer and finer tubes than the dentine. - - ------------ - - - - -A SUMMING UP. - - -The story of the structure of the Ornithosaurians of the Cambridge -Greensand has now been told, and it only remains to gather up the -threads of their affinities and determine the Pterodactyle's place -in nature. But before doing so, so various in importance are the -characters enumerated, that I would first offer a few remarks on the -classificational value of characters among the Reptilia, with which -Pterodactyles have been most commonly grouped. - -The naturalist who only examines organisms now living on the earth, -symbolizes to himself, by the term Reptile, a definite sum of -characters, with definite subdivisions and subordinate grouping, to -which the extinct types of life extricated from the rocks cannot -entirely be adapted. When the fragmentary, and often isolated or -ill-associated, bones of fossilized animals are contrasted with -corresponding bones in the skeletons of Serpents, Crocodiles, Lizards -and Turtles, 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 itself, and -important as are the modifications of existing orders. These characters -occasionally are grouped with others which in living animals had been -deemed characteristic of Fishes, Amphibia, Birds, and Mammals. - -The Reptilia of the Palæontologist is therefore a vast and provisional -group, ever acquiring new characters, to which no diagnosis can be -applied. And although certain empirical characters have served to -allocate the specimens in their several orders, in general with -sufficient accuracy, yet from the imperfect preservation of some of the -remains, or the imperfect extent to which their structures are known, -and the want of recognised canons by which to measure their relative -values, 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 impinge. - -Classifications represent more or less faithfully the gradational -increase in the sum of the characters of an organism, as well as the -increase in importance that those character severally attain. Thus -gathering, so far as may be, from the chaos of individuals, _a common -plan of structures_ on which the genus, order, or class is moulded -from a less specialized group of organs. The fundamental structures -of a vertebrate animal, so far as their persistent importance can be -measured, are, those connected with - - I. Perpetuating the race. - - II. Construction of the brain. - - III. Circulation and oxidation of the blood. - - IV. Locomotion, i.e. skeleton, muscles, &c. - -And these characteristics are for the most part so interlinked, that -it becomes difficult to assign to one order of animals a relative -superiority over another order; 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 group. Thus among reptiles -it might be considered that - - _Crocodiles_ have the best hearts, and _Turtles_ the best lungs. - -And since these structures in their functions severally modify and -determine the use of other structures, 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 respiration, or circulation of the blood. The soft parts thus -determining the nutrition and function of the muscles and skeleton, -anatomists in examining the bones of extinct animals are accustomed to -reverse the order of their inferences, and infer from modifications of -the skeleton what had been the characters of the soft and more vital -structures. - -On the presumed accuracy of this method of research rest many results -of Comparative Anatomy. But since the shapes of bones are determined by -the muscles as well as by inheritance, it is always to be remembered -that a similar form of bone may obtain in different orders or classes -of animals, as the result of a similar function in a special region of -the body. Such resemblances are familiar to anatomists. Hence much -caution is required from the Palæontologist to distinguish between -the characteristics of a group, and the extent to which they may be -modified by function. This distinction is the first principle of -classification. But it is always difficult to estimate the importance -of characters in fragments of bones or parts of skeletons, and the -difficulty is increased by the fact that if what appears to be but a -functional modification should pervade all the species, it becomes -a characteristic of the group, and its power of modifying the other -organs in a peculiar way has to be considered. - -Thus for all practical purposes birds may be said to be characterized -by wings, which almost acquire the dignity of class characters from -their influence on the respiratory function. But in some birds it has -been thought that no bone of the fore-limb was ever developed[V]; and -the difference between such a phenomenon and the wing of a Swift, for -example, is one almost of infinity, as compared with any other aspect -that the anterior limb might have assumed. Therefore, since a bird may -part with its fore-limbs and yet remain a bird, I infer that it might -apply its fore-limbs to the ground, become a quadruped, and be a bird -still. And if in this process the other structures remained unchanged, -no one would regard the modification as more than an ordinal one. But -should the vertebræ change also, or the pelvis, or the covering of -the integument, or the jaws become toothed, then, although the heart -and lungs and brain of the imaginary animal retained their class -characters, the functional differences being more than those of an -order would constitute it a sub-class. - -[Footnote V: According to Prof. Owen, in Dinornis.] - -In the same way it is conceivable that serpents may have existed with -well-developed limbs, and if they retained their other characters the -limbed forms would constitute a sub-order of serpents; but if to these -characters they added a closed palate united to the cranium, they would -constitute a new order of reptiles. A chelonian might be entirely -deprived of its bony covering, and it would still be a chelonian, -differing only as a separate family. So that structures which to the -eye appear fundamental may be lost without affecting an animal's -systematic position, just as animals while resembling each other in -form may possess dissimilar organization. - -Even with the living or typical Reptilia, naturalists are divided as -to the number of ordinal groups into which they naturally fall. It is -however generally agreed that the Amphibia or Dipnoa of Fitzinger, have -no near affinity with the true reptiles. Milne-Edwards, Van der Hoeven -and Agassiz make the remainder into three orders, as did Cuvier: - - Chelonia, - Sauria, - Ophidia. - -Stannius, Gray, Owen and Huxley, on the other hand, by dividing the -Saurians make four orders, to which Dr Günther by his description of -Sphenodon has given evidence of a fifth: - - Crocodilia, - Chelonia, - Sauria, - Ophidia, - (Rhynchocephalia.) - -De Blainville in a remarkable classification (1816), made three orders, -Chelonians, Emydosaurians [crocodiles], and Saurophidians; the latter -group being subdivided into Saurians and Ophidians. - -In his "Handbuch der Anatomie der Wirbelthiere" Stannius unites the -Crocodilia and Chelonia into a group called Monimostylica; while of -the Sauria and Ophidia he makes another group called Streptostylica. -Similar groups were made by Dr Gray, and named Cataphracta and -Squamata. They are identical with the "cuirassed" and "scaly" reptiles -of Dumeril and Bibron. - -The _Astylica_ (Sphenodon) have no penis. - -The _Streptostylica_ have a double penis, lungs simplified at the -distal end into a mere air-bladder, brains with a moderately elongated -cerebrum, the palate mesially open, scales, leathery shell to the egg -cut through by a tooth on the premaxillary bone. - -The _Monimostylica_ have a single penis, lungs well subdivided, -ventricle of heart partly [turtles] or entirely divided [crocodiles], -brains having the cerebrum broad or high, a closed palate, scutes, a -calcareous shell to the egg. - -Thus the chief differences between Turtles and Crocodiles on the one -hand, and Lizards and Serpents on the other hand, are not so much -in the fundamental vital structures, though these undergo changes -even in the families, as in the different ways in which the muscles -and skeleton are modified. The typical lizards diverge widely from -the crocodiles, and in those osteological features which admit of -comparison they make at least as near an approach to the Chelonians. -But leaving the limbs and pectoral and pelvic girdles out of -consideration, lizards find their natural place side by side with the -serpents. - -Attempts have been made by Palæontologists to incorporate the new -ordinal groups which they have been compelled to create for some -fossils, along with the true Reptilia; but such a proceeding destroys -the value of the term Reptile as a measure of a known organization. In -the absence of knowledge of the brains of Dinosaurs, Ichthyosaurs, and -Dicynodonts, their union with the Reptilia can only have a stagnating -effect on Palæontology, for there is no proof that they are Reptiles -in the same sense as are Crocodiles or Chameleons: while their bones -being used as standards of Reptilian structure in comparisons, they -adjudicate the place in nature of other animals by an authority which -has never been established. - -Before any inference can be drawn from the forms of bones in extinct -animals, their relations to vital structures and to way of life must -be known in animals which still live. This may give some clue both -to their functional significance and to the extent to which they are -inherited and not directly attributable to function. 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 allies, tracing -the now imitative structure back to its origin in a function which has -ceased to be displayed. - -Professor Owen in his "Comparative Anatomy of the Vertebrates" (1866) -admits nine orders of Reptiles, five of which are extinct, some of the -extinct orders being supposed to rank lower, while others are higher -than the living types. They are arranged in this way, - - * Pterosauria, - * Dinosauria, - Crocodilia, - Ophidia, - Lacertilia, - Chelonia - * Anomodontia, - * Sauropterygia, - * Ichthyopterygia.+ - - * Extinct. - - + Prof. Owen, _Comp. Anat._ Vol. I. p. 7-9, defines his - sub-classes. At p. 15, in the details of the orders, he puts - Ichthyosaurus in the 5th sub-class _Monopnoa_. But at p. 50, - treating of the vertebral column of Ichthyosaurus, it is written of - as an extinct order of _Dipnoal_ reptiles. The Dipnoa then - would include - - Ichthyosauria, - Batrachia, - Labyrinthodontia, - Ganocephala. - - But Ichthyosaurus obviously belongs to Haeckel's group Monocondylia. - -In what characters the Ichthyosaurs are lower than living reptiles I -have been unable to discover. The palate may be better compared with -a struthious bird than with a reptile; and the pectoral girdle may be -better compared with the Ornithodelphia than with a reptile, while all -the trunk-vertebræ have ribs such as are associated in living animals -with a four-celled heart. But if it is a lower animal type than living -reptilia, the student will ask, how much lower? does it descend to -the Dipnoa, and prove to be the missing link between the Amphibia and -Reptilia? and wherein is the evidence? Or does it not with Dicynodonts -and Dinosaurs rather form an outlying class uniting the reptiles with -the mammals. - -In the same way, when Pterosauria and Dinosauria are placed above -living reptiles, we are compelled to ask how much are they above, or -what are the characters which bind them to the Reptilia at all? No -satisfactory evidence has ever been adduced to show that the Dinosauria -are Reptiles. And of the claim of the Pterodactyles to such a position, -the facts detailed and now summarised will be the best evidence. - -The highest structure shown in these remains is the brain-case. The -cavity for the brain is in every respect like that in the skull of a -bird. It resembles brains of a high type in having the cerebral lobes -convex in front; since, in the lower mammals, there is a resemblance -to reptiles in the conical form of the cerebrum; while the brains even -of some of the placental mammals are not well distinguished from those -of reptiles. Although the brain of the Ornithorhynchus is entirely -mammalian, it is more like the brain of a reptile than is the brain -of the Pterodactyle. No evidence of affinities could be adduced which -would outweigh this. Taken by itself it would lead us to anticipate for -the Pterodactyle those vital structures which birds have in common. - -Next in importance to the brain are the pneumatic perforations in -the bones. They are seen in the lower jaw, the quadrate bone, in the -whole of the vertebral column, in all the bones of the fore-limb, -excepting one or two fragments, in the scapula and coracoid, in the -os innominatum, in the femur and in the tibia. In such of the bones -as can be compared, the pneumatic perforation is usually situated in -Birds as it is in Pterodactyles. In Birds the bones are filled with -air through these perforations, and as a principle the greater the -motion of the animal, the greater is the number of bones filled with -air. This air is received from the air-sacs which receive it from the -lungs, and return it through the lungs again. There is thus in birds -a sort of supplemental lung-system, which circulates air through the -body. Nothing of the kind exists in any other class of animals. The -respiratory system in birds is more perfect and complex than in the -other vertebrata, and, as a result, the temperature of the blood on the -whole is hotter. - -In Pterodactyles the reticulate character of the perforations proves -that they were pneumatic, and supplied the bones with air. The fact -that the bones were supplied with air, necessitates an elaborate system -of air-sacs to furnish the supply. And the existence of these air-sacs -speaks incontestably to bronchial tubes opening on the surface of the -lungs to supply them, and to the existence of lungs essentially like -those of birds. The outward and backward direction of the coracoid -bones may indicate that the lungs were larger than in a bird. - -The circulation of air through the bird's body has relation to rapid -motion through the atmosphere, which necessarily produces more rapid -respiration than would comparative quiescence. The same inference must -be applied to the Pterodactyles. But rapid respiration only means more -rapid oxidation of the blood, and conversion of the purple cruorine -into scarlet cruorine,--that is, the conversion of venous blood into -arterial blood. And if venous blood is converted into arterial blood by -a lung-apparatus like that of a bird, and with a rapidity like that in -a bird, there must be a circulation of the blood as rapid as in birds. -Such a circulation is only maintained by a heart with two auricles and -two ventricles. Therefore Pterodactyles had the heart like that of -birds and mammals. - -Now, since the temperature of the blood is chiefly dependent on -respiration and circulation, and Pterodactyles had respiratory and -circulatory organs which in living animals produce hot blood, it -results that they were hot-blooded animals. - -Thus the heart and lungs are exactly such as would have been inferred -from the brain, and, like it, they are avian. And so important are -these vital structures all taken together, that the inference from them -upon an animal's affinities would overbear all other evidence that -could be adduced except reproduction; for they demonstrate the plan on -which an animal was built, and are the motor power which enabled it to -use its skeleton in a way that stamped upon it a peculiar form. - -In the head such structures as are preserved conform with slight -variations to the avian plan. Other Ornithosaurians show in the parts -which are not preserved in Cambridge specimens some characters which -are not avian; they are in part as much mammalian as reptilian, and -in a few points entirely reptilian. But it might be misleading to -take German specimens into consideration in forming an estimate of -the Pterodactyles of the Cambridge Greensand, which were probably a -different ordinal group, and may have had material differences in -structure. - -The vertebral column as a whole is distinctive. - -The neck and sacrum are mammalian, and the tail reptilian. The -procÅ“lous vertebræ are characteristic of reptiles, but in some animals, -as Chelonians, they vary in different regions of the body; and among -amphibians the character is inconstant in genera nearly allied. - -The hind-limb is in part mammalian and in part avian; if there be any -reptilian characters in the foot, they are not less mammalian. - -The os innominatum is avian and mammalian. - -The pectoral girdle is avian. - -The fore-limb is avian and mammalian. - -The wing-finger is distinctive, though formed on the avian plan. - -Thus, if with an avian basis some parts of the skeleton present points -of agreement with reptiles, in other points there are resemblances -with mammals not less characteristic. These phænomena do not show that -in so far the animal is a mammal or a reptile, but only that mammals, -ornithosaurians, and reptiles have had a common origin, and that while -they have been differentiated so as to form separate classes they have -severally retained characters which formerly were united in one class. -It is a skeleton intermediate between reptiles and mammals, and well -distinguished by mammalian, reptilian, and peculiar characters, from -birds. It therefore forms a parallel group with birds, displaying -the ornithic organization in a differently modified skeleton. Yet it -differs more from existing birds than they differ among themselves, -for the discrepancies are in points of structure in which all existing -birds agree: they are in having teeth, in the procÅ“lous centrum, in the -separate condition of the carpal and metacarpal (and of the tarsal and -metatarsal) bones; in having more than two bones in the fore-arm, in -the sacrum formed of few vertebræ, in the expanded pubic (and prepubic) -bones, in a long neck to the femur, and in the modification of the wing -by the great development of the phalanges of one finger. - -I therefore regard the Pterodactyles as forming a group of equal value -with birds, for which group the name Ornithosauria is here used. -It cannot form a separate class, because they have a fundamental -organization in common; and it cannot form an order of birds, because -its differences from birds are greater than those of an order. It -is a group which itself probably includes several orders, and must -constitute a sub-class, which finds its place in nature side by side -with birds and between mammals and reptiles, thus:-- - - Mammalia. \ - | - | Ornithosauria. Aves - | - Reptilia. / - - -Restoration. - -Of the form and size[W] of the animals from the Cambridge Greensand, an -idea will best be given by a few measurements. - -[Footnote W: There are Ornithosaurians hereafter to be described -compared with which the largest at present known will seem diminutive. -A vertebra of one such, from the Wealden, is contained in the British -Museum (numbered 28632). The centrum alone is between 9 and 10 inches -long and 8 inches deep. It is named Streptospondylus, but constitutes -a new group of Ornithosaurians. Nothing so gigantic exists in the -Woodwardian Museum. Another vertebra of the same or an allied genus has -been figured by Prof. Owen as the tympanic bone of ?Iguonodon (Fossil -Reptilia of the Wealden, Part 2, pl. 10).] - -In the species Ornithocheirus nasutus (Seeley), =J=._c_.2.11.1: - -The premaxillary extends for 6 inches without reaching the nares. - -The lower jaw is 3/4 of an inch deep at the articulation. - -The four cervical vertebræ are each 1-1/2 inch long. - -The sternum measures 1-1/2 inch over the facets for the coracoids. - -The humerus is 2-1/16 inches over the proximal end, the radial crest -not being preserved. - -The coracoid is 1-1/4 inch over the proximal end. - -The scapula is about 3-1/2 inches long. - -The proximal carpal (imperfect) is 1-5/8 inch wide. - -The distal carpal is 1-1/2 inch wide. - -The lateral carpal is 1-1/4 inch long. - -The wing-metacarpal is 1-1/4 inch wide at the proximal end, and 7/8 -inch wide at the distal end. - -The proximal end of the first phalange is about 1-5/8 inch wide. - -The proximal end of the second phalange is less than an inch wide. - -The claw-phalange (imperfect) is about 1-1/4 inch long. - -The femur is 4 inches long. - -Putting the animal together, the bones give this size : - - Head 1 ft. 3 in. long. - Neck 9 " - (_Back and sacrum_) ? 8 " - (_Tail_) ? 10 " - -With the hypothetical parts, this would give a length of about 3 ft. 6 -in. from the tip of the snout to the tip of the tail. Then - - Humerus 8 in. long. - (_Fore-arm_) ?1 ft. 0 " - Carpus 2 " - Metacarpus 10 " - -Which, if the fore-limbs were kept together as in ordinary quadrupeds, -would give a height to the body of about 2 ft. 6 in., but as the limbs -probably spread in walking as among the bats, the hind-limb would give -a better idea of the height of the animal. - - (Flesh, sacrum, os innominatum). 2 in. - Femur 4 " - (_Tibia_) 6 " - (Metatarsus, &c.) 1 " - -Which would give a height of about 13 inches; and, standing in the -position of a bird, the height to the crown of the head would be about -2 feet. The majority of the Ornithosaurians of the Cambridge Greensand -are of this size. - -The spread of the wings, if there were 4 phalanges, would be - - Body 10 in. wide. - Two arms 5 ft. 2 " - Two wing fingers 7 0 " - -Giving a total expanse of about 13 feet. But, from the indications -of the wing-finger, I should incline to think an expanse of 10 feet -a truer estimate. The largest species attained to twice this size, -and the smallest was a fourth as large. Another memoir will present -descriptions and restorations of the Greensand species. - - -Habits. - -The varying organization of different Ornithosaurians probably depends -on the different habits of the tribes. That they could all fly is -probable from the enormous radial crest to the humerus and the great -development of the wing-bones, to which a wing-membrane was stretched, -comparable to that of a Bat in texture, but more comparable to a -Bird in its extent. The groups with long hind-legs probably had the -membrane limited to the bones of the arm, while in the species with -small hind-legs it may have attained even as great a development as in -Bats, though there is no reason for suspecting that it extended to -the tail. A Pterodactyle cannot be supposed to have hung itself up by -the hind-legs as does a Bat, because the hind-claws appear invariably -to be directed forward. A Bat walks upon four legs with considerable -elegance and speed; the wing is folded in, close to the side, so as to -be scarcely noticed; and the outer claw is free to climb with. There -can be little doubt but that Pterodactyles walked in a similar way. The -thickened mammilate knob at the proximal end of the first phalange is -well calculated for contact with the ground. And if it were supposed -that the large wing-metacarpal bone were only used to support the wing, -and the small metacarpals only used to support the claws by which -the creature has sometimes been pictured suspending itself, 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 length. A correspondence of this kind may be presumed to -indicate a correspondence in function; and since the animal did not -fly by means of its claws, the inference is that it walked by means of -the metacarpal bones. In no other way could the bones have been used -equally. The avian ilium would suggest a probability that they also at -times stood erect like birds, from which position they could with more -ease expand their wings; nor is such an idea opposed by the resemblance -of some bones of the hind-limb to what obtains in birds, and of the -neck of the femur to what is seen in mammals of great power in the -hind-legs. - -That they lived exclusively upon land and in air is improbable, -considering the circumstances under which their remains are found. -It is likely that they haunted the sea-shores, and, while sometimes -rowing themselves over the water with their powerful wings, used the -wing-membrane as does the Bat to enclose their prey and bring it to the -mouth. But the superior development of the pneumatic foramina suggest -that their activity was greater than in ordinary sea-birds. - -The large Cambridge Pterodactyles probably pursued a more substantial -prey than dragon-flies. Their teeth are well suited for fish, but -probably fowl and small mammal, and even fruits, made a variety in -their food. As the lord of the cliff, it may be presumed to have taken -toll of all animals that could be conquered with tooth and nail. From -its brain it might be regarded as an intelligent animal. The jaws -present indications of having been sheathed with a horny covering, and -some of the species show a rugose anterior termination of the snout -suggestive of fleshy lips like those of the Bat, and which may have -been similarly used to stretch and clean the wing-membrane. - -The high temperature, coupled with the sub-aerial life, are opposed to -the idea of the animal having been naked. The undisturbed condition of -the skeleton and some points of structure are opposed to the idea of -their having had large feathers. The absence of such remains does not -favour the hypothesis of their having been covered with scales, though -in the legs of birds a scaly covering is met with. I should anticipate -for them a filamentous downy feather, or hair, like a Bat's. The Bat -combs its hair with its claws, and the Ornithosaurians may have used -their claws in a similar way. - -They cannot be supposed to have been gregarious, from the large number -of species relatively to specimens. The reproduction may have been -much the same as in birds; and the young were probably reared with -affectionate care[X]. - -[Footnote X: Mr Carruthers has shown me crushed Turtle-like eggs from -the Stonesfield slate, 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 Ornithosaurian.] - - * * * * * - -_The following notes indicate structures in perfect specimens from the -Lithographic slate which supplement the fragmentary remains from the -Cambridge Greensand_[Y]. - -[Footnote Y: The German animals form different family groups. And -it cannot be inferred that the structures seen in them pertained to -Cambridge specimens.] - -In the head, Cambridge specimens show no trace of the parts which are -between the brain-cavity and the fore-part of the jaw. The form and -condition of the orbits, nares, and of the space between them, vary -in German specimens. Some Birds and certain Ruminants, such as deer, -the giraffe, &c., have an interspace between the orbits and nares -corresponding to that in some Pterodactyles, but no such perforation -is found in living reptiles. In mammals it appears to be surrounded -by the frontal, nasal, lachrymal, and often by the maxillary bone. -In birds the bones appear to be the lachrymal, nasal, maxillary and -premaxillary, as is the case with Pterodactyles, except that the nasal -bones would seem sometimes to be excluded. The chief peculiarity of -the Pterodactyle skull in this region is made by the malar bone (and, -according to some authors, the maxillary also) sending up a process to -meet the lachrymal. This is not seen in birds, but is characteristic of -many mammals and reptiles. - -The premaxillary bone is single, as in birds and Iguana; but it appears -to attain as great a development as in birds, and to occupy the portion -of the jaw which among reptiles and mammals is made by the maxillary -bone. Owing to the great development of the premaxillary bones, the -exterior nares are placed far back toward the middle of the skull as in -birds, and not near the tip of the snout as in living reptiles and most -mammals. - -The orbits in Pterodactyles are surrounded with bone, as is commonly -the case with mammals and reptiles. Among birds a complete orbit -is seen among the parrots, in which it is completed below by a -prolongation of the outer posterior corner of the frontal, which would -correspond to the post-frontal bone, and by the lachrymal bone. Thus -the malar bone, which in most mammals and reptiles forms an important -part of the lower margin of the orbit, is in birds entirely excluded. -In Pterodactyles the malar bone is placed between the lachrymal and the -post-frontal process of the frontal bone. - -The quadrate bone in German Pterodactyles, instead of being vertical -as in birds, stretches obliquely forward below the malar bone, so that -the articulation for the lower jaw is brought forward to be under the -middle of the orbit. In _Pterodactylus Kochi_ and in other species -there appears to be a process, or small separate triradiate bone, -comparable to a diminished lacertian post-frontal, and homologous -with the post-frontal process of the parrots. Its upper branch meets -the frontal. In some genera the front appears to meet the malar. The -lower branch goes to the front of the quadrate bone, and the backward -branch goes to the squamosal immediately above the articulation for -the quadrate bone. Thus it is a post-frontal bone resembling that -of the Iguana, but modified and adapted to a cranium like that of a -bird. Its form and size in the different genera are very variable. No -similar development is seen among mammals, where the post-frontals have -probably ceased to exist. It is a carious point of resemblance, but -from the other resemblances to Iguana being so few it is robbed of much -of its force as a mark of affinity, and becomes of interest chiefly as -an evidence of independent persistence of structures. - -The pterygoid and palatine bones approximate to those of bird and -lizard in Pterodactylus crassirostris. And the bones in Pterodactylus -suevicus, which Quenstedt names vomera, should rather have been named -palatines. There is a bone in Goldfuss' specimen, between the malar and -palatine, which he identifies with the transverse bone, but it is not -seen in any other specimen. - -The ribs sometimes appear to articulate by single heads, but in P. -crassirostris they are apparently articulated as in the Crocodile. -Some species show abdominal ribs like those of some reptiles; but the -segments of the mammalian sternum and abdominal ribs are to be regarded -as homologous structures. The vertebræ offer considerable variety in -size and shape, but the greatest variation in number is seen in the -tail, which is sometimes stiff and long, and sometimes short. The -pelvic bones show a large amount of variation in different genera, -often appearing to be crocodilian, sometimes lacertian, sometimes -mammalian. In the aim the humerus is variable in the length of the -radial crest, and the metacarpus also varies in length. - -When the external similarity of the skeletons of birds is borne -in mind, it is impossible, without disregard of classification -altogether, to place animals differing so widely as do the different -Ornithosaurians in the few genera in which they are at present packed. - - - - -CLASSIFICATION. - - -The orders of Ornithosaurians may be established hereafter. Under the -name Pterosauria, Prof. Owen founded one order which has for its type -the Pterodactylus longirostris. - -Von Meyer proposed to separate this order into two groups, one with -two phalanges in the wing-finger, of which Ornithopterus is the only -example, forming his Diathri; while the other group, Tetrathri, -or those "with four fingers, comprised all other Pterosaurians. -The Tetrathri he again subdivided, following out, as he states, -the suggestion of Munster and Goldfuss, into _Dentirostres_ or -such Pterodactyles as have the jaws furnished with teeth to their -anterior termination; and the _Subulirostres_, or such as want teeth -at the extremities of the jaws. To the former group he left the name -Pterodactylus, and to the latter was given the name Rhamphorhynchus. -Von Meyer says that he might easily have made a few more species, as -will be evident to those who inspect his plates, but he "believes -that the students of living animals go too far in their tendency to -subdivide:" a fancy that, if indulged in by Palæontologists, would have -the effect of restoring the old Linnæan groups; and a complaint which, -although often heard, has usually come from those who do not readily -discern and appraise classificational characters. In Palæontology -genera are sometimes co-extensive with orders, while species often mean -genera. It may be wearisome to the collector to be lured on to follow -the devious ways of a science, but Palæontology, the source whence -the mysteries of existing nature must unravel their meaning, is the -handmaid of all nature's truths which have been buried in evolving the -existing creation; and a duty devolves upon Palæontologists to make the -past an inseparable part of the present, by applying to the two the -same scientific method. - -A year previous to the formation of Owen's Pterosauria, Bonaparte named -the Order Ornithosaurii, and divided it into a family--Pterodactylæ, -and a sub-family Pterodactylinæ. - -Fitzinger (_Systema Reptilium_, 1843) also used the same ordinal name, -and recognized three genera-- - -_Pachyrhamphus_, of which the type is Pterodactylus crassirostris -(Gold.). - -_Pterodactylus_, with the type P. longirostris (Cuv.). - -And _Ornithocephalus_, with the type O. brevirostris (Sömm.). - -These and other attempts at classification all endeavour to subdivide -Ornithosaurians by the head or by the tail. Other characters for -primary divisions may be obtained from the pelvis. - -In the majority of German Pterodactyles the ilium extends for a long -distance in front of the os pubis, and only for a very short distance -behind the large ischium; and the small pubis from its anterior margin -gives attachment to a large prepubic bone, which resembles in form -the os pubis of the Crocodile[Z], and is unlike that of the Monotreme. -These appear to include the long-legged animals with short tails, at -present called Pterodactyles, and form a well-marked family or order. - -[Footnote Z: Prof. Haughton, from a study of the bones and muscles, -came to the conclusion that the pubic bones of Crocodiles are the -marsupial bones.] - -Another kind of pelvis is that in which the ilium extends a short -way in front of the acetabulum, in which the pelvic bones inclose a -much larger space. These include the Cambridge Ornithosaurians, the -Rhamphorhynchus, and the Dimorphodon, and form another well-marked -family. - -These long-tailed Pterodactyles subdivide into three -sub-families--Rhamphorhynchæ, Dimorphodontæ, and Ornithocheiræ. The -four families may then be defined thus: - - _Pterodactylæ_. Tail short. Hind-legs long. Ilium narrow, extending - far anterior to the acetabulum; ischium extending behind the - acetabulum. Epipubic bones ficiform. Head with the middle holes - large, often confluent with the exterior nares. Jaws toothed to the - anterior extremity. - - _Rhamphorhynchæ_. Tail long and stiff. Hind-legs short. Pubis and - ischium small, oblique to ilium, which extends less far anteriorly - than in Pterodactylæ. Epipubic bones narrow and bent; they unite - mesially and form a three-sided bow in front of the pelvis. Head - with the middle holes and nares both small. Jaws never toothed to - the anterior extremity. - - _Dimorphodontæ_. Tail long and stiff. Hind-legs long. Pubis and - ischium forming an expanded sheet of bone at right angles with the - narrow ilium, which extends as far behind as in front [prepubic - bones triangular (?) attached by the apex of the triangle]. Head - with the nares and middle holes large. Quadrate bone large. Jaws - with large teeth at the extremities, and small teeth behind. No - sacrum. - - _Ornithocheiræ_. Tail long and flexible. Hind-legs short. Pelvis as - in Dimorphodontæ. [Epipubic bones with a small attachment, form - unknown.] Head with the quadrate bone small. Sacrum of not fewer - than three vertebræ. - -In the Pterodactylæ the genera are-- - - _Pterodactylus_ (Cuvier), in which the exterior nares are at the - sides of the face, very large, and only partially, if at all, - separated by bone from the small middle hole of the head. The head - is elongated. The neck is long. Among others, it includes the - species P. longirostris, P. Kochi, P. scolopaciceps, P. longicollum. - - _Ornithocephalus_ (Sömmerring), in which the anterior nares are - entirely separated from the middle holes of the head, both being - small, and the latter exceedingly small. The head is short The - neck is short. The large ischium appears to be excluded from the - acetabulum, and the ilium appears to extend less far forward than - in Pterodactylus[AA]. - -[Footnote AA: So far as can be judged from figures, it appears to have -but three bones in the wing-finger: what Cuvier regarded as a terminal -and fourth joint, the bone _n_, Pl. XXIII. fig. 7, _Oss. Foss._, -appearing to me to be the fibula of the tibia marked _e_. _s_ in the -same figure would be the terminal phalange, and _r_ the first phalange, -as may be proved by measuring them with those of the other hand, -so that a phalange is missing from between them. Both the terminal -phalanges appear to be hooked at the termination. Goldfuss figures -the phalanges so as to make the bone which appears to be fibula in -Sömmerring and Cuvier look like a fourth phalange.] - - _Pachyrhamphus_ (Fitzinger). The nares are entirely separated from - the middle holes of the head; both are large. The head is thick - and massive. The prepubic bones meet mesially. No evidence of - the number of phalanges in the wing-finger. The quadrate bone - is massive, but has small attachment to the skull. Two sacral - vertebræ. Wing-metacarpal very short. The type is P. crassirostris - (Goldfuss). - - _Cycnorhamphus_ (Seeley). Nares very small, looking upward from - a swan-like beak. The middle hole of the skull very large and - elongated and lateral. Neck long. Wing-metacarpal long. Four joints - in the wing-finger. Ilium widening in front. Epipubic bones meeting - mesially. The type is Pterodactylus suevicus (Quenstedt). - -In the Rhamphorhynchæ at present there appears to be but one genus -known: - - Rhamphorhynchus (von Meyer). The nares and middle holes are both - small, ovate, of nearly equal size, and close together at the side - of the head in front of the orbit. - -In the Dimorphodontæ the only genus is - - _Dimorphodon_ (Owen). It has the nares enormously large. The middle - holes are also large. - -In the Ornithocheiræ the genus is - - _Ornithocheirus_ (Seeley), in which teeth are prolonged anterior to - the muzzle, and the palate has a longitudinal ridge. - -With the osteological illustrations of the Ornithosauria are arranged -some premaxillary bones, which show varieties of form of the snout. -These variations of shape serve easily to indicate different species. -And the following memoranda from those specimens and other specimens -in the drawers form a synopsis of the species of the Cambridge genera, -which may hereafter be fully elucidated from the copious materials in -the series of associated remains. - - - I. - - Ornithocheirus Sedgwicki (Owen). - - Case. Comp. Tablet. Specimen. - =J= _c_ 13 2 - -The fragment is 2-7/8ths inches long, with the elliptical teeth -opposite to each other, 6 on a side on the palate, and one pair in -front. The first three teeth are large; behind these the teeth are -about half the size. The palate is gently convex, with a faint median -ridge, and measures from side to side over the fourth and subsequent -sockets 13/16ths of an inch. The height of the jaw at the fourth socket -1-1/4 inch. The sides converge to an acute rounded rostral keel. The -jaws appear to have been long. The anterior termination is vascular. - -The rostral keel figured by Owen Pl. I, fig. 1 _d_, in the 1st Supt. -_Cret. Reptiles_, is not square as represented there, but rounded; -the sides converge more acutely, and at the ridge the keel is not -half so wide as the figure makes it. The enormous size of the third -tooth-socket is partly due to the cracked bone having absorbed -more phosphate of lime than it could hold, and extended the cracks -to fissures. The type specimen shows that there was another pair -of sockets in front of, but quite close to, those which appear to -terminate the lower jaw. - - - II. - - Ornithocheirus Cuvieri (Bowerbank). - - Case. Comp. Tablet. Specimen. - =J= _c_ 15 1-3 - -A portion of a premaxillary bone fractured at both ends, and two inches -long, corresponds with Dr Bowerbank's fossil figured Pl. XXVII. fig. 1, -3, 4, in the Palæontographical volume for 1851. The palate is just as -wide; the median ridge, the same; the teeth the same in shape and as -far apart. The jaw is of the same depth, but does not deepen so rapidly -behind. The only other difference is that the sockets of the teeth are -less prominent on the sides, and appear to look more directly down. - -The ridge in which the converging sides meet is well rounded in a -dentary bone which may have pertained to this species. In the space -of two inches and a quarter are 5 teeth, the posterior four extending -over two inches, the other pair being in front. The palatal surface is -3/4 of an inch broad behind the third tooth, and rather more than 5/8 -of an inch broad behind the fourth tooth. The length of the 4th or of -the 5th sockets is two-thirds that of the second or third. In front of -the 5th tooth, the jaw is an inch deep, and it tapers in a curve to -the anterior end. The teeth behind the third have interspaces greater -than the length of the sockets; that between the 4th and 5th being 3/8 -of an inch, while the socket only measures a quarter of an inch long. -Behind the 2nd socket commences the palatal groove, broad in fronts but -narrowing behind; and its sides instead of diverging as in the type, -are concave so as to form a channel like a straightened _Siliquaria_ -shell. The halves of the palate bevel off so as to make a right angle -with each other, and greater angles with the flat sides. - - - III. - - Ornithocheirus machærorhynchus (Seeley). - - Case. Comp. Tablet. Specimen. - =J= _c6_ 35 1 - -Dentary bone. Broken at both ends, and wanting all its teeth, this -interesting fossil shows the suture where its whole length rests on the -angular bone which almost reached to the termination of the beak, quite -unlike what is seen in any German Pterodactyle. - -It is a narrow mandible, less than three quarters of an inch wide, with -the alveolar margins parallel. The palatal surface 1-1/2 inch long, -is divided into 3 equal strips; the middle one being a deep glossal -groove, slightly narrowing in front, and deepening behind, made by two -inclined flat surfaces. The lateral strips are horizontal behind, and -in front slope a little outward. The tooth-sockets are oval, directed -outward, and as long as the interspaces, though these seem to get -longer behind. In an inch and a quarter there are four teeth. Below -the teeth, the sides of the jaw are compressed: though nearly parallel -at the hinder fracture, the flattened surfaces approximate in front -till they meet in a sharp keel, which appears to make an acute angle -of about 45° with the palate; and below, where the jaw is an inch deep -extends for half an inch in front of the suture with the angular bone: -this suture is straight and irregularly concave, and in an inch and a -quarter approximates to within 5/8ths of an inch of the palate. - - - IV. - - Ornithocheirus tenuirostris (Seeley). - - Case. Comp. Tablet. Specimen. - =J= _c2_ 12 1 - -Middle part of a premaxillary bone fractured behind and in front, -slightly distorted by compression; it is 2-1/8th inches long, and -nearly resembles _O. compressirostris_ (Owen). The palate is about -1/2 an inch wide in front, and 5/8ths of an inch wide behind; it is -compressed mesially into a strong angular keel, between which and -the teeth there is a shallow groove on each side. The groove dies -away behind, and the converging parts of the keel occupy the whole -space between the teeth. The teeth-sockets are small, elliptical, not -opposite to each other, and placed along a distinct flattened tooth -area, which looks downward and outward and separates the palate from -the side of the jaw. The first pair of sockets preserved are almost -3/16ths of an inch long and 1/16th of an inch wide. The interspace -between that tooth and the next tooth behind is 7/16 of an inch. -Separated by similar interspaces, behind these on one side are two -sockets, and on the other side one socket. The sides are flattened in -front, and convex behind, (making the section of the jaw lanceolate); -they are compressed and round into a narrow rostral keel. The height -from the palatal ridge to the rostral keel in front is 11/16ths of an -inch; behind it is fractured, but the height was probably 14/16ths of -an inch. - -The palatal keel, distance of the teeth, and proportions of the jaw, -distinguish it from O. compressirostris (Owen). - - - - V. - - Ornithocheirus Oweni (Seeley). - - Case. Comp. Tablet. - =J= _c_ 20 - -The small piece of premaxillary on which this species is founded -indicates a small animal, and nearly resembles the jaw of _O. microdon_. - -It is scarcely an inch long; nearly 9/16ths inch high behind, and -nearly 7/16ths of an inch high in front, so that it tapers very -rapidly, and could scarcely have been an inch longer in front. - -The nose is well rounded, but the sides are a little concave, and -become well pinched in in the middle, behind, showing the near approach -as I think to the nostril. - -The palate half an inch broad, is divided into two concave channels by -the strong and sharp median ridge, which projects below the alveolar -margins. The dental margins are not rounded as in _C. microdon_, but -flattened, making more than a right angle with both the outer side-wall -and palate. The interspaces between the teeth are rough, looking as -though they had supported minute teeth. The alveolar margin is a -tenth of an inch wide; along it are the perfectly circular sockets, a -sixteenth of an inch in diameter. There are 3 sockets between 5/8 of an -inch, so that they are separated by 3 times their diameter. The palate -is obliquely impressed with blood-vessels running forward to the teeth -from the median ridge. - -The points in which this jaw differs from that of _O. microdon_ are -that in this species the teeth are circular instead of being oval; that -the interspaces here are as long as in that species, though this jaw -is only two-thirds the width; that instead of having a sharp keel on -the upper surface, this has a well rounded roof. That though the jaw -is scarcely higher than it is wide, it shows strong furrows running up -to the nares, while in _O. microdon_, though the proportions are the -same, the sides are perfectly flat without trace of pinching in, while -the line of the nasal opening is indicated by a faint furrow running -all along the jaw. And lastly it differs in size, which, where the -sutures are lost, may be important in discriminating forms. - - - VI. - - Ornithocheirus microdon (Seeley). - - Case. Comp. Tablet. Specimen. - =J= _c_ 29 1-2 - -Premaxillary bone. The fossil is nearly 1-3/4ths inch long, and at the -proximal end, where it is less than 3/4ths of an inch high, has flat -sides, which converge to form a keel which is depressed anteriorly -and rounded so that where fractured in front the bone is 7/16ths of -an inch deep. The palatal surface contains two wide concave channels, -between which descends a sharp median ridge, which behind becomes more -prominent than the alveolar border. - -The palate is 5/8ths of an inch wide. The alveolar margins are -compressed and rounded. The small tooth-sockets are oval, and four are -contained in 1-1/8th inch; they look downward. - -There is a small tip of a jaw associated with this fossil, which is so -like that it might be part of the bone broken off before fossilization. -It corresponds in every way except that the teeth are closer. In this -terminal lanceolate fragment there are in 5/8ths of an inch four teeth. -The snout is terminated by two, which are close together. - - - VII. - - Ornithocheirus Huxleyi (Seeley). - -The only specimen of this species yet known is the greater part of a -dentary bone contained in the Museum of the Geological Survey. An inch -and 1/4 long and 3/4ths of an inch wide, it is less than half an inch -deep: the sides slowly converge towards the front, and it appears to -have had an obtusely lanceolate beak. The under surface is convex, too -inflated for trace of a keel, and tapers to the end of the beak, which, -with the left alveolar margin is abraded. The palatal surface is smooth -at its front end, but two diverging ridges soon arise and form the -boundary of a posteriorly deepening mesial channel, which is a quarter -of an inch wide at the fracture. These ridges too, which are parallel -with the compressed and rounded alveolar margins, convert the lateral -spaces into shallow channels. The right side shows the sockets of 3 -small oval teeth separated by interspaces wider than teeth. A tooth and -two interspaces measure 7/16ths of an inch. - -The only cretaceous Pterodactyle which this at all resembles is _O. -microdon_, but the palate is wider than in that species; the sides -converge towards each other more rapidly, as though it belonged to a -species with a shorter snout. - -I am indebted to Prof. Huxley for the opportunity of making a notice of -this species. - - - VIII. - - Ornithocheirus oxyrhinus (Seeley). - - Case. Comp. Tablet. Specimen. - =J= _c2_ 13 1 - -This well-marked species is a portion of a premaxillary bone 1-1/4 inch -long, fractured behind and in front. The palate is half an inch wide; -its two halves are inclined to each other at a considerable angle, and -where they meet form a more prominent keel. The tooth-sockets look more -outward than downward, are nearly circular, separated by interspaces -as long as the sockets; three sockets and two interspaces measure one -inch. The jaw is about 5/8ths of an inch high in front, and about -1/16th of an inch higher behind. The sides are flat and converge like -the sides of a wedge to a sharp rostral keel. - - - IX. - - Ornithocheirus xyphorhynchus (Seeley). - -I have seen but one example of this form. It has lost much of the outer -layer of bone, and shows on the sides impressions like tooth-marks from -an eater of Pterodactyles. A groove which has some appearance of being -due to fracture traverses each side, but the specimen is symmetrical, -and has its characters in no way changed by the accident. - -It is a portion of a lower jaw of a long-beaked Pterodactyle of the -_O. Sedgwicki_ type, with parallel sides, and the rounded basal ridge -nearly parallel with the palate. - -The fragment is two inches long, showing four large and obliquely set -sockets in If inch. The tooth-sockets are on the outer two-thirds of -the palate, and looked forward, upward, and outward The interspaces -each measure 5/16ths of an inch. - -Each half of the palatal surface which is 5/16 of an inch wide, -inclines to the other half at a right angle, being parted by a narrow -groove; the diameter of the jaw is half an inch. - -The depth of the jaw is 5/8ths of an inch in front, and 3/4ths of an -inch behind. The sides are flat and approximate below to a sharp keel. -This species is one of many in the collection of W. Reed, Esq. of -York, kindly placed in my hands for the elucidation of those in the -Woodwardian Museum. - - - X. - - Ornithocheirus Fittoni (Owen). - - Case. Comp. Tablet. Specimen. - =J= _c_ 14 1, 2 - -The fragment is 1-1/2 inch long, with two large elliptical -tooth-sockets on each side of the flattened palate, and one pair in -front. The third socket is separated from the fourth by a considerable -interspace. Between the third sockets arises the median palatal ridge, -and from the inner margin of each socket a lateral ridge appears to be -continued. Behind the third socket the jaw measures 11/16ths of an inch -from side to side, and 10/16ths of an inch high. The sides converge -and round convexly into each other. The jaws appear to have been long; -It is only known by upper jaws. The type specimen shows the socket of -another tooth in front of the last one figured by Prof. Owen. It is -directed outward at a greater angle, and separated from the hinder one -by a wall not 1/16th of an inch thick, and the teeth of this pair must -have been parted from each other by a film equally thin. There is no -truncation of the snout as in _O. Woodwardi_. - -Another specimen shows some variations. This fragment of a premaxillary -bone is fractured through the third pair of tooth-sockets in front -and through the seventh pair behind. It is about 2-1/8th inches -long; the palate is 11/16ths of an inch wide behind the great tooth, -and maintains the same width. The jaw is 11/16ths of an inch high -behind, and 10/16ths high in front. The sides are gently convex, and -imperceptibly unite to form the well-rounded depressed mesial ridge of -the beak. From the front of the third to the back of the fifth socket -measures 1-3/8ths inch. The sockets are ovate, rather smaller, and -closer together than in the type of _O. Fittoni_; margins elevated. -The variations from types are so many, and often so considerable, as -to suggest the idea that the fossil groups called species may in the -living animals have often been genera. - -In all the specimens the end of the palate is a little reflected upward. - - - XI. - - _Ornithocheirus dentatus_ (Seeley). - - Case. Comp. Series. Specimen. - =J= _c1_ 9 1 - -A fragment of premaxillary bone two inches long, fractured behind the -socket for the seventh tooth. It most nearly resembles _O. Sedgwicki_ -and _O. Cuvieri_. Behind the second tooth the palate is 1/2 an inch -wide; behind the sixth socket it is 5/8ths of an inch wide; the -distance between these points is nearly 1-1/2 inch. The palate is -flattened, with a sharp slight mesial keel and a wide concave channel -on each side which dies away in front. The first pair of teeth are in -front of the snout, rather small, and look forward. In this specimen -the large third tooth is not developed on the left side. The second and -third sockets are large and close together; the succeeding teeth are -parted from each other by interspaces equal to their own diameter. They -are gibbously elliptical. The sides of the jaw are gently convex from -above downward; they round into each other to form a narrow rostral -keel. Behind the second socket the jaw is 1/2 an inch high; behind the -sixth it is nearly 7/8ths of an inch high. - -The grooved and relatively wider palate, and the relatively smaller -teeth, abundantly distinguish this species from _O. Sedgwicki_ (Owen). - -The smaller, more circular teeth, placed closer together, distinguish -it from _O. Cuvieri_ (Bowerbank). - - - XII. - - Ornithocheirus scaphorynchus (Seeley). - - Case. Comp. Tablet. - =J= _c_ 22 - -This fragment of premaxillary bone is 1-1/2 inch long. The palate is -1/2 an inch wide behind, and the jaw is rather more than 1/2 an inch -high; behind the second tooth it is nearly 5/8ths of an inch high. The -sides converge superiorly to form a well-rounded keel. The palate is -flattened, with a slightly elevated blunt median keel. There appears to -be a pair of small teeth in front of the snout as usual, and six on the -palate, with an indication of another at the posterior fracture. The -teeth are of moderate size and almost circular. In the form of the bone -it is readily distinguished from all the species enumerated. - - - XIII. - - Ornithocheirus platystomus (Seeley). - - Case. Comp. Series. Specimen. - =J= _c6_ 32 1 - -An ill-preserved fragment fractured in front and behind, yet -indicating a distinct species. The palate is flat, with the faintest -median ridge, and the sides are flat and round into a narrow -rostral keel, which in front approximates rapidly towards the -palate. The first pair of sockets are missing; what appears to be -the second pair are about 1/8th of an inch long, separated from the -pair behind by an interspace of 1/4th of an inch. These are ovate -and less than 1/4th of an inch long, and separated from the next -pair by an interspace of not less than 1/4th of an inch. The height -of the jaw over the first pair of sockets preserved is 9/16ths of an -inch; over the second pair it is 14/16ths of an inch; the space -between these points is 9/16ths of an inch. Behind the second pair -of teeth the palate is nearly 5/8ths of an inch wide. - -The only species which it resembles is _O. brachyrhinus_, but -differs from that in the flatter, narrower palate, which makes a -greater angle with the rostral keel, and in the smaller teeth, -which are separated by wider interspaces. - - - XIV. - - Ornithocheirus nasutus (Seeley). - - Case. Comp. Series. Specimen. - =J= _c2_ 11 1 - -A fragment of a premaxillary bone 6 inches long. It somewhat -resembles _O. Cuvieri_ in the aspect of the palate, but the jaw -is more elongated, and expands from side to side at the anterior -end. The teeth are opposite to each other in front, but become -irregular after the sixth. The palate measures behind the second -pair of sockets 3/4ths of an inch, behind the third pair it is a sixteenth -of an inch wider, behind the ninth pair half an inch, and in the -last two inches it begins to widen again. A sharp keel arises -behind the second pair of sockets and becomes more prominent to -behind the tenth pair, when the channel which accompanies it on -each side seems to disappear. The first pair of teeth, which look -forward, is smaller than the second and third pairs; they are closer -together than those which follow. The third sockets are 7/8ths of -an inch from the tip of the snout. Then follow three smaller, -more circular teeth, which are separated from each other by interspaces -as long as the sockets. The back of the sixth sockets are -2-1/4 inches from the tip of the snout. Then follow two larger -more elliptical sockets; after which the sockets become smaller -and are separated by longer distances, that between the 10th and -11th pairs is nearly 3/4ths of an inch. - -The height of the jaw behind the second pair of sockets is 5/8ths -of an inch, behind the sixth sockets 15/16ths, behind the tenth sockets -1-1/4 inch. In front, the nose has the aspect of being compressed -from above downward, and behind it is compressed from side to -side. The sides are flattened and round into a narrow rostral -ridge which is depressed at the anterior end. - - - XV. - - Ornithocheirus polyodon (Seeley), - - Case. Comp. Tablet. - =J= _c_ 21 - -This species is founded on the anterior end of a premaxillary bone; -in form not unlike _O. Fittoni_. It is 5/8ths of an inch wide; the -lateral margins approximate very slowly, and in front it appears to be -truncated. It is an inch and a quarter long, and in that space were -on each side six large round teeth, almost as close together as they -could be, five on the palate and a pair in front. The terminal two -are no wider apart than the rest, and point more forward. A moderate, -sharp, median ridge descends in the flattened palate, making its -lateral halves a little concave. The front termination of the palate is -slightly reflected upward. The jaw, which is 1/2 an inch deep behind, -tapers to its termination more rapidly than does _O. Fittoni_. The flat -sides similarly converge, and form a well-rounded ridge, which does not -get blunter in front. From their close approximation, it results that -the tooth-sockets are entirely above the palatal surface, so that they -are better seen from the side of the jaw than from the palate. - -It is a clearly marked species, as well distinguished from _O. Fittoni_ -by the closeness of its teeth, as _O. Sedgwicki_ is from _O. Cuvieri_. - - - XVI. - - Ornithocheirus denticulatus (Seeley). - - Case. Comp. Series. Tablet. - =J= _c5_ 28 1 - -This is a species which can only be confounded with O. polyodon. It -is a fragment of premaxillary bone 1-3/4 inch long, fractured through -the seventh socket. It differs from O. polyodon in having larger -teeth, which are wider apart, look more downward, have a narrower -palatal interspace between each pair, and a rostral keel, which is more -compressed from side to side behind and from above downward in front, -and makes a greater angle with the palate. - -The sockets are more uniform in size and closer together than usual, -the second and third pairs being but slightly larger than the others; -all are broadly elliptical. The palatal keel becomes sharp and -prominent behind the fourth sockets. Behind the second pair of sockets -the height of the jaw is nearly 7/16ths of an inch, behind the fourth -sockets the height is 10/16ths of an inch; the distance between these -points is about 10/16ths of an inch. - - - XVII. - - Ornithocheirus crassidens (Seeley). - - Case. Comp. Series. Tablet. - =J= _c1_ 2 2 - -This is a fragment of a ?premaxillary bone, fractured behind through -the socket for the fourth tooth. It approximates to O. colorhinus, -but differs chiefly in the nose not extending in front of the first -pair of teeth; in there not being any lunate area above the first pair -of teeth; in there being but one tooth in front, which is relatively -large; in the socket for the fourth tooth being quite close to that for -the third tooth, and in the palatal sockets looking much more outward. -The nose also appears to be better rounded. - -The fragment is 1-7/8 inch long. The second and third sockets, with -their interspace, measure 1-1/8 inch. On the opposite side the first -socket is intermediate in position between the first and second. - -Though not likely, it is just possible that this might be the -premaxillary bone of O. eurygnathus. - - - XVIII. - - Ornithocheirus brachyrhinus (Seeley). - - Case. Comp. Tablet. - =J= _c_ 24 - -This fragment of a premaxillaiy bone is fractured behind the sockets -for the third pair of teeth. It is 1-1/8 inch long, and shows one pair -of small teeth in front and two pairs of large ovate teeth on the -palate. The first pair are divided from each other and from the second -pair by films of bone; and the second pair are separated from the -third by rather more than half the length, of the third socket. Behind -the third pair of sockets the palate is 5/8ths of an inch wide; it is -flattened, and has a blunt moderately elevated mesial ridge. Behind -the second pair of sockets the jaw is 5/8ths of an inch high; behind -the third pair of sockets it is 3/4ths of an inch high; the distance -between the places of measurement is 1/2 an inch. The sides are flat -and converge to a rounded nose. The jaw is rounded from side to side -in front, and the outline of the top of the nose rounds over the blunt -termination of the snout above the teeth on to the palate. - -In the shortness of the nose it somewhat resembles the _?P. giganteus_ -(Bowerbank), but the jaw attenuates less rapidly, is truncated, and has -larger teeth. - - - XIX. - - Ornithocheirus enchorhynchus (Seeley). - - Case. Comp. Tablet. - =J= _c_ 25 - -This species nearly resembles _O. brachyrhinus,_ from which it differs -in larger size, with a relatively wider palate, which is without a -keel, and in a larger front pair of teeth. It approximates towards -_O, colorhinus_, but is smaller, and wants the rugose lunate area -over the front pair of teeth characteristic of that species. There -are many varieties or species nearly related to this type, but from -their imperfect preservation and the small part of the head which they -represent, it is not possible to give descriptions of them. - - - XX. - - Ornithocheirus eurygnathus (Seeley). - - Case. Comp. Series. Tablet. - =J= _c3_ 16 1 - -A fragment of a ?dentary bone, fractured behind through the socket for -the third tooth. The sockets are nearly circular. It measures about an -inch long,, and behind the socket for the second tooth 1-3/4 inch high. -The sides of the jaw are gently concave from above downward, having -a pinched aspect and approximating; they round into a narrow rostral -ridge, 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 sockets. The first -pair of sockets are nearly as large as the second, and from the steep -incline of the jaw look more than usually upward; they are 7/16ths of -an inch long, are separated from each other by an interspace of 6/16 -ths, and from the second sockets by an interspace of more than 1/8th of -an inch, while the second socket is separated from the third by about -1/4th of an inch. The palatal space between the second pair is about -3/4ths of an inch. - - - XXI. - - Ornithocheirus colorhinus (Seeley). - - Case. Comp. Tablet. Specimen. - =J= _c_ 17 1, 2 - -Fragments of premaxillary bones. The largest portion is 2-1/2 inches -long, and is fractured behind the socket for the fourth tooth, and the -upper part of the nose is also broken away. The palate is flattened, -with the median part slightly convex. The sides of the jaw converge -upward, but not rapidly; in front they round into each other, but there -is a slight mesial depression. The front pair of teeth are large, -separated from each other and from the second pair by films of bone. -Above the first pair of sockets, so as to look downward and forward, is -an impressed lunate area 9/16ths of an inch wide and 5/16ths of an inch -high, to which a soft lip may have been attached. This area is in the -same plane with the first pair of teeth and at right angles with the -upper outline of the nose. The sockets of the first pair of teeth are a -little smaller than the second pair; they are both about half an inch -in diameter and nearly circular. An interspace of 3/16ths of an inch -separates the second socket from the third. The tooth is elliptical, -the socket being narrower and longer than that of the second. The -palatal interspace between the third pair is more than 3/4ths of an -inch. The interspace between the third and fourth sockets is about -3/8ths of an inch. The diameter of the nearly circular fourth socket is -1/4th of an inch. - -The overhanging lunate lip space, with the size of the teeth and width -of the palate, abundantly distinguish this species. - - - XXII. - - Ornithocheirus woodwardi (Owen). - - Case. Comp. Tablet. Specimen. - =J= _c_ 18 1-4 - -I regard the fragment on which this species was founded as being the -terminal end, and not a section of a jaw; partly from the rounding of -the lateral surfaces to the front, and chiefly from the snapped off -teeth in the middle of the truncated anterior end, for they are smaller -than the pair behind them, and look forward at a greater angle, so that -the converging sockets of both pairs meet behind. These characters are -well shown in Mr Dinkel's excellent figure, Pl. II. fig. 3_a_. Second -Sup. Palæont. The palate is destroyed, and gives no clue to the bone -being either lower or upper. - -Another specimen, rather smaller, shows the rostrum well rounded; the -front is truncated at right angles to it: there is the same rounding -of its lower part into the sides, and the stumps of the front pair of -teeth are visible though they are again worn level with the rugose -front of the snout. - -But the finest fragment of this species is a rostral end, (perhaps of -the upper jaw) three inches long, two inches deep, and with the palate -as wide. It indicates 5 teeth on a side: the front pair small, 2nd and -3rd much larger, and two pairs behind, which are smaller. The palate -is flat, and attains its greatest width at the third tooth, behind -which it contracts noticeably. The third tooth is more than half an -inch in diameter, the fourth is 5/16ths of an inch long. The spaces -between teeth seem equal to the long diameter of the sockets, which -are oval and straight. The sides round into the front of the muzzle -more gradually in this specimen than in the others. An impressed line -runs along the median ridge of the upper surface. Just as the jaw gets -narrower behind, so the well-rounded upper surface becomes more acute -behind. - -Behind the third socket the palate measures 1-7/8 inch from side to -side, and the jaw is there nearly 2 inches high. - -This is the most massive Pterodactyle jaw known. In the recent state -it may have indicated a creature sufficiently distinguished from -those to which the smaller fossils belonged, but now the divergence of -characters is so slight as to be for zoological purposes of no value. - -It is related to O. Fittoni; the chief points of difference being the -truncated muzzle, the compression behind the third tooth, the much -sharper (?) dorsal ridge, and the large size of the head. - - - XXIII. - - Ornithocheirus capito (Seeley). - - Case. Comp. Series. Tablet. - =J= _c3_ 14 1 - -A fragment of premaxillary bone, well distinguished from every other -specimen, except one in the collection of Mr Reed of York, which is -here named _O. Reedi_. It is a large head, with larger teeth than any -known species. The jaw is truncated in front, with a rugose vertical -area in front reaching 1-3/4 inch high from the palate, on which the -usual front pair of teeth are not seen. At the angle of this front area -with the palate is a large elliptical tooth 9/16ths of an inch wide, -and behind it, with an interspace of 3/16ths of an inch, is a socket -measuring 10/16ths of an inch in length; the next interspace is about -1/8th of an inch, and the next nearly circular socket is 5/16ths long; -then another interspace of 1/8th of an inch, and another and a smaller -tooth. The palate appears to have been channelled. The sides of the -jaw are flat, or slightly concave, and where fractured above, are 3 -inches high. Above the rugose vertical area of the snout, is an area, -concave from back to front, reaching up to the rostral keel; it is flat -from side to side behind, and convex from side to side in front. So -much as is preserved measures 1-3/4 inch in length, and appears to be -relatively narrower than in O. Reedi. - - - XXIV. - - Ornithocheirus Reedi (Seeley). - -The anterior part of an upper jaw has flattened slightly concave sides, -which converge above so as to form boundaries of (1) a flat triangular -area which looks anteriorly, and of (2) an oblong area, traversed by -a mesial groove, which looks upward and forward and is concave from -back to front. In the lower half of the truncated triangular anterior -termination are the remains of the stumps of the two anterior teeth; -they are oval in outline, 9/16ths of an inch high, and 7/16ths of an -inch wide; they are parted by an interspace nearly 1/4 of an inch -wide, which becomes concave vertically as it rounds on to the palatal -surface. All the front triangular surface above the teeth is rough: its -entire height is about 1-1/4 inch, and is nearly as wide across the -base. The side rounds a little into the concave median upper surface, -and into the triangular front; so much as is preserved measures 2-1/2 -inches high, and 1-3/8 inch long. The palatal surface, which is very -small and badly preserved, is 1-3/4 inch wide behind, but gives no -indication of further widening. On its outer border are seen two large -circular teeth 5/8ths of an inch in diameter; they are separated by a -median palatal interspace of 7/8ths of an inch. Where it is fractured -behind, the specimen shows the sockets of another pair of teeth behind -these, with an interspace of 1/4 of an inch in the antero-posterior -direction. The palate is convex. - -The superior oblong area is concave in length as well as transversely. -It makes a great angle with the triangular front of which it is the -upward continuation; so much as is preserved extends 1-1/2 inch in -length; it is about 1/2 an inch wide. - -I am indebted to W. Reed, Esq. of York, for the opportunity of making a -notice of this species, which closely resembles _O. capito_. - - * * * * * - - The species which follow were separated in the "Index to the - Ornithosauria," &c. as a different genus. That proposal might - still be sustained, for these massive truncated jaws are unlike - the spear-shaped jaws of many of the species. And to the minds of - some readers the forms already described will arrange themselves in - groups which not improbably indicate genera. But a re-examination of - the type _Pterodactylus simus_ (Owen) has convinced me that it is a - _lower jaw_, and therefore it affords no evidence of the presence or - absence of the peculiar front premaxillary teeth which characterize - nearly all the Cretaceous species. - - - XXV. - - Ornithocheirus simus (Owen). - - Case. Comp. Specimen. - =J= _c_ 16 - -The palate is 2-3/4 inches long, and at the second pair of teeth -about 7/8ths of an inch wide. It is fractured at the end through -the fifth socket, and at the side along the palatal groove. The -first pair of teeth is smaller and closer together than the others. -The palatal interspace between the second pair is 3/8ths of an inch; -between the third pair, which are large teeth, it is 1/2 an inch. -The sockets are sub-circular, and are not separated from each -other by wider interspaces than their own length. In front is a -long triangular rugose area, convex from above downward, a distance -of 1-1/2 inch; and concave from side to side, a width above of -rather more than 1/2 an inch. Below this the flattened sides converge -to a blunt keel; where, fractured, the jaw is 2-1/2 inches deep. -There are several fragments of species allied to the last; one -has the triangular area in front very small, only half as high as -in the type and very narrow, for the sides are gently rounded -into it. It is marked by short longitudinal furrows, impressed -vessels I think, while in O. simus the surface is irregularly rough. -The first pair of teeth are much larger than in O. simus; they -are longer, more conical, and circular, and separated by as wide a -space as the second pair. There is not much to found a species on, -but as it appears to be quite distinct from O. simus, it is named -_O. Carteri_. Another fragment, with the area very long, is marked -_O. platyrhinus_. But a sufficiency of species has been indicated to -make known the Ornithosaurian fauna of the Cambridge Greensand. -And the detailed description of critical types and of the -other parts of the skeletons is beyond the general osteology of the -tribe, and will rather belong to a memoir in which this flock of -Pterodactyles will be restored to their living forms. - - * * * * * - - 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 Wight. It appears to indicate a distinct species. It is - 2-1/2 inches long, and shows three large teeth still preserved in - their sockets. The extreme width outside the third pair of sockets - is nearly 2 inches. The sides, which are slightly concave from above - downward, converge so as to give the broken end a triangular outline. - In front is a small sub-triangular area, deeply scored with vascular - markings; below this the outline slopes obliquely backward, and the - two sides there round convexly into each other. The first socket is - 7/16ths of an inch long, the tooth coarsely striated, and like the - others elliptical; the interspace between the first and the second - teeth is 5/16ths of an inch. The second tooth, probably immature, is - an inch in length, smooth, and like the third traversed in front and - behind by a slight lateral ridge; at the base it measures 5/16ths - of an inch from front to back. The third tooth is rather less than - 5/8ths of an inch from front to back. The interspace between the - first and second _sockets_, which the teeth do not entirely fill, - is more than 1/4 of an inch. The posterior margin of each socket is - elevated into a sort of collar. - - - - -APPENDIX. - - _Enumeration of some of the principal writings on the Ornithosauria - (selected chiefly from Von Meyer's Reptilien aus dem - Lithographischen Schiefer), with references to the shelves in the - Cambridge University Library, where the books may be consulted._ - - Agassiz (Louis).--Memoires Soc. Nat. Neuchâtel, Vol. 1, p. 19, - _paragraph notice in a memoir_, "Résumé des travaux de la section - d'histoire naturelle, et de celle des sciences medicales - pendant l'année, 1833" B. 3. 66. - - A briefer notice in a paper, "A Period in the History of our - Planet," in Edinburgh New Phil. Journal, 1843, Vol. 35, - p. 9, quoted by Von Meyer XXVIII. 36. 65. - - de Blainville (D.).--Osteographie; Palæotherium, p. 9 (Vol. 2), - quoted by v. Meyer AF. 5. 9. - - Bonaparte (C. L.).--Nuovi Annali delle Scienze Naturali Bologna[1], - Vol. 1, 1838, p. 391; Vol. 4, 1840, 24 Sept. p. 91. - - Blumenbach.--Manuel d'Histoire naturelle, éd. 1803, Vol. 2, - p. 408 B. 12. 20. - - (Vergleichende Anatomie, 1805, p. 75), § 44, Translation, - 1807 Tt. 18. 51. - - Handbuch der Naturgeschichte, 1825, p. 620 Yy. 39. 6. - - Burmeister.--Gesellsch. zu Halle, Vol. 3, Part 2, 1855; - Viertel-jahrsbericht, 28 April, p. 11 XXVI. 50. 2. - - Collini.--Acta Acad. Theod. Palat. 1784, Vol. 5, - p. 58, pl. 1. 17. 5. 34. - - Cuvier.--Ossemens fossiles, Vol. 5, Pt. 2, p. 359, ed. 1824, pl. 23. - VII. 1. 36. - Annales du Museum, 1809, Vol. 13, p. 424 B. 42. 13. - Règne Animal, ed. 1850, Vol. Rept. p. 62. XVIII. 15. 15. - - Dumeril et Bibron.--Erpétologie générale, Vol. 4, p. 549. B. 37. 33. - - Fischer.--Bibliotheca Palæontologica, Moscow, 1834, p. 163. LR. 15. 58. - - Fitzinger.--Systema Reptilium[1], 1843, p. 35. - - Fraas.--Württemb. naturw. Jahreshefte, XI. 1855, p. 102. XIII. 24. 25. - - Giebel.--Jahresbericht des naturwiss. Vereins zu Halle[1], 1849-50. - Fauna der Vorwelt, 1847 (Vögel und Amphib. p. 89). B. 46. 17. - Allgemeine Palæontologie[1], 1852, p. 231. - - Goldfuss.--Nova Acta Leopold., XV. Part 1, p. 63, pl. 7-10. 23. 4. 63. - - - Van der Hoeven.--Verslagen en Mededeelingen van het K, - Nederl. Institut over den Jare, 1846, p. 430. 23. 6. 136. - - Merk.--Bald. Medic. Journ. Stück. 1787, Vol. 4, p. 74. XVIII. 23. 10. - - H. von Meyer.--Reptilien aus dem Lithograph. Schiefer, 1859 - (Fauna der Vorwelt) KK. 1. 55. - Nova Acta Leopold., XV. Part 2, 1831, p. 198, pl. 60 23. 4. 64. - Palæologica, 1832, pp. 115, 228 X. 20. 39. - Jahrb. für Mineral. 1837, p. 316 XIII. 14. 32. - 1838, pp. 415, 667 XIII. 14. 33. - 1843, p. 583 XIII. 14. 38. - Palæontographica, Vol. 1, p. 1846 B. 40. 53. - Jahrb. für Mineral. 1854, p. 51 XIII. 14. 50. - 1855, p. 328 XIII. 14. 61. - 1856, p. 826 XIII. 14. 52. - 1857, p. 535 XIII. 14. 53. - 1858, p. 62 XIII. 14. 62. - - Von Munster.--Jahrb. für Mineral. 1832, p. 412 XIII. 14. 27. - Nova Acad. Leopold., XV. Part 1, p. 49, pl. 6 23. 4. 63. - Jahrb. für Mineral. 1836, p. 580 XIII. 14. 31. - Beiträge zur Petrefaktenkunde, i.; p. 83, 1839 XIII. 11. 49. - Jahrb. für Mineral. 1839, p. 677 XIII. 14. 34. - 1842, p. 35 XIII. 14. 37. - - A. Oppel.--Württemb. naturw. Jahreshefte, XII. 1856, p. 326. - XIII. 24. 25. - Württemb. naturw. Jahreshefte, XIV. 1858, p. 55 XIII. 24. 26. - - Oken.--Isis, 1818, p. 246, pl. 4 XXII. 5. 2. - 1819, p. 1788 XXII. 5. 3. - - Quenstedt.--Jahrb. für Mineral. 1854, p. 570 XIII. 14. 50. - Ueber Pterodactylus Suevicus[1], 4to. 1855. - Sonst und Jetzt[1], 1856, p. 130. - Württemb. naturw. Jahreshefte, XIII. 1857, p. 41; XIV. 1858, - p. 299 XIII. 24. 26. - Der Jura, 1858, p. 812 B. 44. 48. - - Ritgen.--Nova Acta Leopold., XIII. Part 1, 1826, p. 329, pl. 16. - 23. 4. 68. - Th. von Sömmerring.--Denkschriften Akad. München, - 1812, Vol. IV. p. 89, pl. 5-7[2] 23. 3. 28. - 1820, Vol. VI. pp. 89, 102, pl. 23. 3. 31. - - Spix.--Denkschriften Akad. München, VI. 1820, p. 59 23. 3. 31. - - Theodori.--Notiz für Nat. u. Heilk. 1830, No. 623, p. 101. 24. 2. 28. - Bericht des naturforschenden Vereins in Bamberg, 1852, p. 17. - - Wagler.--System der Amphibien, 1830, p. 61, figs. 1, 2. - - Wagner (A.).--Abhandl. Bayerischen Akad., - II. 1837, p. 163, pl. 23. 3. 41. - VI. Part 1, 1851, p. 129, pl. 5, 6; - Part 3, 1852, p. 690, pl. 19 23. 3. 45. - VIII. Part 2, 1858, p. 439, pl. 15-17 23. 3. 61. - -[Footnote 1: May be consulted on application to the Librarian.] - -[Footnote 2: Good figure.] - - - -_Chief English Writings on Ornithosaurians._ - - J. S. Bowekbank.--Quart. Jour. Geol. Soc. 1846, p. 7. VII. 3. 42. - Quart Jour. Geol. Soc. 1848, p. 2. VII. 3. 44. - Proc. Zool. Soc. 1851, p. 14. XVIII. 18. 3. - - W. Buckland.--Geol. Trans. Ser. 2, Vol. III. p. 217. XIII. 2. 8. - Geology and Mineralogy, Vol. I. p. 221, Vol. II. p. 31, pl. 21, 22. - _Zz_. 34. 10. - - T. H. Huxley.--Quart. Jour. Geol. Soc. 1859, p. 658. VII. 3. 35. - Introduction to Classification of Animals, 1869, p. 110 B. 41. 70. - Proc. Zool. Soc. 1867, p. 417. XVIII. 18. 19. - - G. A. Mantell.--Geol. Trans. Ser. 2, Vol. V. p. 170. XIII. 2. 10. - Quart. Jour. Geol. Soc. Vol. II. p. 104. VII. 3. 42. - - R. Owen.- Geol. Trans. Ser. 2, Vol. VI. 1840, p. 411. XIII. 2. 12. - Brit. Assoc. Reports, 1841, p. 156. II. 6. 10. - Quart. Jour. Geol. Soc. Vol. II. p. 96. VII. 3. 42. - British Fossil Mammals and Birds, 1846, p. 545. IX. 5. 15. - Odontography, Vol. I. p. 273. IX. 10. 23. - Dixon's Geology of Sussex, 1850, p. 401. VII. 1. 5. - Palæont. Soc. Monograph, Owen, 1851, p. 80. XVIII. 14. 17. - Proc. Zool. Soc. 1851, p. 21. XVIII. 18. 3. - British Assoc. Reports, 1858, p. 97, sec. II. 6. 27. - Philosophical Trans. Royal Soc, 1859, Vol. 149, p. 161. 15. 3. 61. - Palæontographical Soc. Monograph, 1859. XVIII. 14. - 1860. XVIII. 14. 9. - Palæontology, p. 244. B. 46. 29. - Anat. Vertebrates, Vol. I. pp. 6, 18, 161, 175, 192, Vol. II. - p. 13. IX. 11. 22. - - H. G. Seeley.--British Assoc. Reports, 1864, p. 69, sec. II. 6. 33. - Annals of Natural History, 1865, Vol. XV. p. 148. XIII. 30. 29. - 1866, Vol. XVII. p. 321. XIII. 30. 31. - 1869, Vol. III. p. 465. XIII. 30. 37. - Index to Aves Ornithosauria and Reptilia, p. 4, p. 89. VII. 6. 71. - - - - -INDEX. - - - Affinities, 24, 94 - Albatross, 31 - Alisphenoid, 81 - Appendix, 129 - Archæopteryx, 8 - Aspect, 105 - Astylica, 97 - Atlas and axis, 64 - Avian carpus, 52 - - - Basi-occipital bone, 78 - Basi-sphenoid, 80 - Bat, 31, 105 - Birds, 52 - Blainville, 97 - Body, 108 - Bonaparte, 109 - Brain, 25 - Brain-cavity, 87 - Buckland, 60 - Burmeister, 17 - - - Cambridge upper Greensand, 2 - Camel, 47 - Carp, 79 - Carpus, 48 - Carruthers (Mr), 106 - Caudal vertebræ, 75 - Cerebral lobes, 87 - Cervical vertebræ, 65 - Cetaceans, 30 - Chameleon, 31, 34, 37, 41, 47, 72 - Chelydra, 61 - Chrysochloris, 42, 47 - Ciconia marabou, 86 - Circulation, 100 - Classification, 108 - Claw phalange, 59 - Cod, 79 - Coracoid, 32 - Cranium, 80 - Crocodile, 31, 35, 37, 41, 47, 63, 69, 83, 93, 95, 97 - Cuvier, 7, 92 - Cycnorhamphus, 111 - - - Delphinidæ, 83 - Dentary bone, 92 - Dicynodonts, 61 - Dimensions, 103 - Dimorphodon, 112, 60 - Dinornis, 67 - Dinosaurs, 99, 61 - Dipnoal reptiles, 99 - Dorsal vertebræ, 69 - - - Echidna, 61 - ?Eggs, 106 - Epipubic bones (see prepubic bones) - Evidence that Pterodactyles were Reptiles, 5 - - - Facial bones, 91 - Families, 110 - Femur, 62 - Fibula, 63, 22 - Food, 105 - Fore-arm, 48 - - - Gallus domesticus, 90, 82, 34 - Genera, 111 - German Pterodactyles, 106 - Goldfuss, 11, 63 - Goose, 92 - Grouping of reptiles, 97 - Gypogeranus serpentarius, 42 - - - Habits, 104 - Hand, 53 - Hare, 87 - Head 18, 77, 106 - History, 3 - Horse, 41 - How the meaning of the word reptile is lost, 98 - Humerus, 38 - Huxley (Prof), 86, 116 - - - Ichthyosaurus, 34, 37 - Iguana, 41, 47, 69, 82 - Ilium, 60 - Ischium, 60 - - - Jerboa, 64 - - - Kangaroo, 55, 69 - - - Ligamentum teres, 62 - Lower jaw, 91 - Llama, 77, 69 - - - Malar bone, 107 - Mammalian Affinities, 31, 34, 87, 41, 42, 61, 62, 69, 75, 79, 83, - 86, 94, 105 - Manubrium, 29 - Marsupial bones, 61, 110 - Materials, 1 - Mergus merganser, 31 - Metacarpus, 53 - Metatarsus, 63 - Meyer (H. von), 17, 109 - Mole, 30, 37 - Monimostylica, 97 - Monitor, 41, 47, 69, 72, 86 - Monotremata, 34 - Mould of Brain-cavity, 87 - - - Objections to Prof. Owen's grouping, 99 - Occipital bones, 81 - Oken, 10 - Optic lobes, 84 - Orbito-ethmo-sphenoid bone, 85 - Orbits, 107 - Organization, 7 - Ornithocephalus, 111 - Ornithocheirus, 112 - Ornithorhynchus, 88 - Ornithosauria, 27 - Ossemens fossiles, 7 - Ostrich, 52, 58, 86 - Owen (Prof. R.), 3, 29, 32, 36, 48, 54, 56, 64, 66, 69, 75, 78, 88, - 91, 92, 98, 108, 115 - - - Pachyrhamphus, 111 - Parrot, 87 - Palæontology, 109 - Parietal bones, 81 - Parker (Mr W. K.), 79 - Pectoral girdle, 28 - Pelvis, 59 - Penguin, 8, 69 - Petrosal, 82 - Phalange, 56 - Plan of organisation, 25 - Pneumatic cavities, 23, 26, 100 - Porpoise, 86 - Post frontal, 107 - Premaxillary bones, 91, 107 - Prepubic bones (prepubic), 61, 110, 111 - Pterodactyle's place in nature, 102 - Pterodactylus, 111 - Pteroid bone, 48 - Pterosauria, 99, 108 - ?Pterygoid end of palatine bone, 91 - - - Quadrate bone, 89, 107 - Quadrato-jugal, 90 - Quenstedt, 17, 21 - - - Radius, 42 - Reptilia, 94 - Respiration, 26, 100 - Restoration, 103 - Rhamphorhynchus, 111 - Ribs, 108 - Roc, 5 - - - Sacrum, 73 - Scapula, 35 - Scink, 41, 72 - Second phalange, 57 - Sömmerring, 10 - Species, 112 - Squamosal bone, 81 - Stannius, 97 - Sternum, 28 - Streptostylica, 97 - Struthious birds, 31, 72 - - - Tarso-metatarsus, 63 - Teeth, 92 - Tibia, 62 - - - Ulna, 43 - - - Vertebral column, 64 - ?Vomer, 88 - - - Wagler, 11 - Wagner, 14 - Walker (Mr J. F.), 87 - Walking, 105 - Walrus, 79 - Wing-finger, 66 - -THE END. - - -Cambridge:[** Old Eng] - -PRINTED BY C. J. CLAY, M.A. AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS. - - -PLATE I.[AB] - -Sternum and Scapula. - - Fig. 1. Fore-part of sternum showing the ovate synovial facet - for the coracoid. =J=._a_.1, p. 28. - - ------------------ - - 2. Outside of the proximal end of a right scapula. - Largest specimen. =J=._a_.3, no. 2, p. 35. - - 3. Outside of greater portion of a left scapula. =J=._a_.3, no. 13. - - 4. Inner side of a small right scapula. =J=._a_.3, no. 12. - - 5. Outside of proximal end of a right scapula. =J=._a_.3, no. 3. - - 6. Surface of =J=._a_.3, no. 3. articulating with humerus. - - 7. Outside of distal end of a scapula. =J=._a_.4, no. 1. - - 8. View of the distal termination of a scapula. - - 9. View of proximal end of left scapula looking from the distal - toward the articular end. =J=._a_.3, no. 17. - - 10. Proximal end of right scapula where united with coracoid, - looking at the scapula from the articulation. - =J=._c4_.18.6. Compare fig. 6. - - 11. Inner surface of same specimen showing the pneumatic - foramen at the union of scapula and coracoid. - - 12. Outer view of the same specimen. - - -[Footnote AB: For the Lithographic details of plates 1 to 3, the author -is not answerable. Accidents happened to these plates in the printing, -and they were replaced without his knowledge by good copies; which -however have sometimes deprived the bones of their characters.] - -SCAPULA - -Pl. 1. - -[Illustration] - - -PLATE II. - - -Coracoid and Radius. - - Fig. 1. Outer side view of left coracoid. =J=._c3_.16.5, p. 32. - - 2. Back view of the same specimen showing the surface - which unites with the scapula. - - 3. Outer side view of perfect right coracoid. =J=._c4_.18. 5. - Near the figure 3 is the pneumatic notch. - - 4. View of the proximal articular surface of a right coracoid. - =J=._a_.2, no. 23. - - 5. Inner view of distal end of left coracoid. =J=._a_.2, no. 18. - - 6. The distal articulation of the same specimen. - - ------------------ - - 7. Fragment of proximal end of radius 4/5 nat. size. =J=._a_.11, - no. 7, p. 46. - - 8. Proximal end of radius. =J=._a_.11, no. 1. - - 9. Proximal articular surface of radius from the same - specimen. - -CORACOID AND RADIUS - -Pl. 2. - -[Illustration] - - -PLATE III. - - -Radius and Ulna. - - Fig. 1. Inner view of distal end of right radius. =J=._a_.10, no. 2, - p. 44. - - 2. Outer view of distal end of right radius. =J=._a_.10, no. 3. - - 3. Distal articulation of right radius. =J=._a_.10, no. 6. - - ------------------ - - 4. Inner view of proximal end of ulna with olecranon - anchylosed, p. 45. - - 5. Side view of the same specimen. =J=._a_.9, no. 1. - - 6. Proximal end of ulna from which the olecranon has come - away. =J=._a_.9, no. 5. - - 7. Proximal articular surface of same specimen. - - 8. Proximal articular sur&ce of ulna. =J=._a_.9, no. 4. - - 9. Proximal articular end of ulna from which the olecranon - has come away. - - ------------------ - - 10. Distal end of right ulna. =J=._a_.13, no. 5, p. 43. - - 11. Distal articulation of the same specimen. - - 12. Distal end of left ulna. =J=._a_.12, no. 3. - - 13. Distal articulation of the same specimen. - -RADIUS AND ULNA - -Pl. 3. - -[Illustration] - - -PLATE IV. - -Humerus. - - Fig. 1. A nearly perfect right humerus, from Ashwell. =J=._a_.6, - no. 30, p. 38. - - 2. Same specimen seen from the proximal end, so as to display - the distal end, twisted at right angles with the radial - crest. The pneumatic foramen is on the anterior and - radial side. - - 3. Proximal end of left humerus showing the radial crest - perfect. =J=._a_.6. 25. - - 4. Articular surface of same specimen showing the termination - of the radial crest. - - 5. Posterior aspect of proximal end of right humerus. The - pneumatic foramen is on the posterior and ulnar side. - - 6. Proximal articular surface of left humerus. =J=._a_.6, no. 2. - - 7. Distal end of right humerus. =J=._a_.6, no. 29. - - 8. Distal articulation of left humerus. =J=._a_.6, no. 45. - - 9. Distal end of same specimen. - - 10. Distal end of left humerus. =J=._a_.6.20. - - 11. Distal end of right humerus. =J=._a_.6.46. - - 12. Distal end of left humerus. =J=._a_.6.34. - - 13. Distal end of left humerus from a specimen lent by - J. B. Lee, Esq. - - 14. Distal end of left humerus. =J=._a_.6.35. - -HUMERUS - -Pl. 4. - -[Illustration] - - -PLATE V. - -Carpal Bones. - - Fig. 1. Distal surface of right proximal carpal bone, p. 48. - - 2. Same specimen seen from outer end, showing the large - unarticular surface, above is a part of the distal - articulation. =J=._b_.1, no. 1. (figured upside down). - - 3. Proximal articular surface of right proximal carpal bone. - =J=._b_.1, no. 7. The right upper part is for the radius, - the left lower part for the ulna. - - 4. View of same specimen (upside down) from the ulnar side. - - 5. View of same specimen from the radial side. - - ------------------ - - 6. Portion of distal articular surface of a right distal carpal - bone. =J=._b_.3, no. 23, 4/5 nat. size, p. 50. - - 7. Front radial side of right distal carpal. =J=._b_.3.24. - - 8. Back ulnar side of the same specimen. - - 9. Proximal articular surface of the same distal carpal. - - 10. Distal articular surface of the same distal carpal. - - 11. View of the proximal articular surface of the same - distal carpal, seen from the inside. - - 12. Perfect element of left distal carpal bone showing the - distal carpal bone to be composite. - - 13. Distal surface of a right distal carpal of another genus. - =J=._b_.3, no. 20. - - ------------------ - - 14. Lateral carpal or pisiform bone, seen from the inside, the - distal articular talon partly broken. =J=._b_.4, no. 2. - - 15. Lateral carpal seen from the outside. =J=._b_.4.9. - - 16. Same bone showing the distal articulation, p. 51. - - 17. Lateral carpal bone of a different genus, seen from the - inside. - -CARPAL BONES - -Pl. 5. - -[Illustration] - - -PLATE VI. - -Wing Metacarpal Bone, &c. - - Fig. 1. Fragment of the proximal end of a large wing-metacarpal - bone. =J=._b_.5, no. 9. It is figured upside down, - a part of the surface articulating with the distal carpal - bone being over the fig. 1, p. 53. - - 2. Aspect of the proximal articular sur&.ce of the wing-metacarpal - bone. =J=._b_.5, no. 3. - - 3. Exterior aspect of the same specimen. - - 4. Inner aspect of another proximal end. =J=._b_.5, no. 4. - - 5. The greater part of a small wing-metacarpal bone. - =J=._b_.5, no. 1. Imperfect at the distal end. - - 6. Distal end of a wing-metacarpal bone. =J=._b_.5, no. 31. - - 7. Front aspect of the same specimen. - - ------------------ - - 8. Distal end of metatarsal bone or of a metacarpal bone - of a small finger. =J=._b_.8, no. 1. - - 9. Lateral aspect of a similar bone. =J=._b_.8, no. 2. - - ------------------ - - 10. Outline of the imperfect distal termination of a bone - regarded as left metatarsus of an Ornithosaurian. - =J=._b_.13, p. 63. - - 11. Front aspect of the same specimen. - - ------------------ - - 12. Articular aspect of proximal end of first phalange of the - wing-finger, from which the terminal epiphysis has - come away. =J=._b_.6, no. 10. - - 13. Diagram outline of the same specimen, p. 56. - -WING-METACARPAL BONE, &c. - -Pl. 6. - -[Illustration] - - -PLATE VII. - -Wing Finger. - - Fig. 1. Exterior aspect of proximal end of first phalange of the - wing-finger. =J=._c3_.16.12, p. 56. - - 2. Inner aspect of proximal end of a small wing-metacarpal - bone which has lost its proximal epiphysis; it shows - the notch for the pneumatic foramen. =J=._c1_.8.8. - - 3. Fragment of the proximal end of a large wing-metacarpal - bone, showing near the fig. 3 part of the articular - surface. =J=._c3_.15. 10. - - 4. Distal end of 1 first phalange of the wing-finger. - =J=._c6_.31. 7, no. 1. - - 5. Distal articular surface of a first phalange. - - 6. Distal end of a first phalange. =J=._b_.6, no. 4. - - ------------------ - - 7. Proximal end of the second phalange of the wing-finger. - =J=._c2_.12.12, p. 57. - - 8. Proximal end of a small second phalange. =J=._b_.7, no. 7. - - 9. Proximal end of a large second phalange. =J=._b_.7, no. 4. - - ------------------ - - 10. Side view of distal end of right femur. =J=._b_.11, no. 11, - p. 62. - -WING FINGER - -Pl. 7. - -[Illustration] - - -PLATE VIII. - -Pelvis, Femur, Tibia, &c. - - - Fig. 1. Fragment of a large right os innominatum. The faint - T-shaped lines in the acetabulum indicate the limits - of the three component pelvic bones; fig. 1 is placed - at the posterior border of the ischium. =J=._b_.10, no. 1. - - 2. Imperfect right os innominatum, with the anterior - and posterior wings of the ilium broken away. - =J=._b_.10, no. 4, p. 69. - - 3. Imperfect left os innominatum showing the small obturator - foramen which divides the pubis from the - ischium. On the anterior border of the pubis is seen a - depression, which may have given attachment to the - prepubic bone. =J=._b_.10, no. 3. - - 4. Visceral aspect of an imperfect right ischium. =J=._c4_.20.2. - - ------------------ - - 5. Exterior side aspect of a right femur. =J=._c2_.11. 20. - - 6. Front aspect of the same specimen, p. 62. - - 7. Posterior aspect of proximal end of right femur of a - different genus, showing a pit for the obturator - muscle. =J=._b_.11, no. 1. - - 8. Front aspect of the same specimen. - - 9. Outline of the proximal articular end; the obturator pit - is darkened. - - 10. Posterior aspect of distal end of right femur. =J=._b_.11, - no. 20. - - 11. Outline of the distal articular end of the same specimen. - - 12. Distal end of a large right femur. =J=._b_.11, no. 12. - - ------------------ - - 13. Proximal end of tibia (? front aspect). =J=._b_.12, no. 8. - - 14. Another view of the same specimen, p. 62. - - 15. Outline of the articular aspect of the same tibia. The - non-articular part is shaded. - - ------------------ - - 16. Claw phalange. =J=._c1_.2.5, p. 69. - - 17. Claw phalange. =J=._c_.9, no. 4. - -PELVIS, FEMUR, TIBIA, &c. - -Pl. 8. - -[Illustration] - - -PLATE IX. - -Neck Vertebræ. - - Fig. 1. Anterior aspect of an axis to which the atlas was not - anchylosed. =J=._c3_.15. 2, p. 64. - - 2. Anchylosed atlas and axis seen from the base of the - vertebra. =J=._c_.1, no. 8. - - 3. Anchylosed atlas and axis seen from above. =J=._c_.1, - no. 14. - - 4. Atlas, neural arch imperfect. =J=._c_.1, no. 10. - - 5. Anchylosed atlas and axis seen from the side, the neural - arch of the atlas is wanting. The light space in the - centrum of the axis is the pneumatic foramen. =J=._c_.1, - no. 14. - - ------------------ - - 6. Large cervical vertebra seen from below. =J=._c_.2, no. 42, - p. 65. - - 7. Small cervical vertebra seen from below. =J=._c_.2, no. 43. - - 8. Cervical vertebra seen from behind. =J=._c_.2, no. 5. - - 9. Cervical vertebra seen from above. =J=._c_.2, no. 23. - - 10. Cervical vertebra seen from the left side. =J=._c6_.27.1, - no. 4. - - 11. Cervical vertebra of another genus seen from the left - side. =J=._c_.2, no. 13. - - 12. Base of the centrum of the last true cervical vertebra. - =J=._c_.2, no. 40. - - 13. Right side of cervical vertebra. =J=._c_.2, no. 7. - -NECK VERTEBRÆ - -Pl. 9. - -[Illustration] - - -PLATE X. - - - -Back and Tail Vertebræ. - - Fig. 1. Centrum of a vertebra from the region between the neck - and the back, called pectoral. =J=._c_.3, no. 19, p. 69. - - 2. Dorsal vertebra seen from below. =J=._c2_.12.3, no. 2. - - 3. The same specimen seen from behind. - - 4. Right side view of a dorsal vertebra showing the neural - spine nearly perfect. =J=._c_.3, no. 20. - - 5. The same specimen seen from behind. - - 6. Right side of dorsal vertebra showing anterior and posterior - zygapophyses. The neural spine broken. - - 7. Front view of the same specimen. The centrum is seen - to form but a small part of the anterior articular - surface. - - ------------------ - - 8. Bight side of a sacral vertebra =J=._c_.4, no. 1, p. 73. - - 9. Front aspect of the same specimen. The neural arch - forms part of the intervertebral articulation with the - centrum. - - 10. Side view of the anterior part of a sacrum, presented by - H. C. Raban Esq. =J=._c_.4, no. 3. - - 11. The same specimen seen from below. - - 12. Inferior aspect of posterior part of sacrum of a different - genus. =J=._c_.4, no. 2. - - ------------------ - - 13. Large caudal vertebra seen from above. =J=._c_.5, no. 9. - - 14. The same specimen seen from beneath, p. 75. - - 15. Left side of the same specimen. - - 16. Anterior articulation of the same specimen. - - 17. Posterior aspect of the same specimen. - -BACK & TAIL VERTEBRÆ - -Pl. 10. - -[Illustration] - - -PLATE XI. - -Cranium. - - Fig. 1. Occipital aspect of the skull of a Pterosaurian. =J=._c_.8, - no. 2, p. 84. - - 2. Anterior aspect of the same skull, showing a transverse - section of the brain cavity fractured through the - parietal bones. At its base on each side are seen the - optic lobes. - - 3. Anterior aspect of a Pterodactyle skull of a different - genus. =J=._c_.8, no. 1. The frontal bones have come - away from the parietal at the suture, p. 80. - - 4. Superior aspect of the same specimen looking upon the - parietal, supra-occipital, and ex-occipital bones. - - 5. Occipital aspect of the same specimen, showing the - foramen magnum, the absence of the basi-occipital - bone, and the basi-sphenoid mass. - - 6. Side view of the same specimen, showing below the - girdling occipital crest the excavation for the quadrate - bone's articulation with the skull, and the forward - prolongation of the basi-sphenoid mass. - - 7. Palatal aspect of the basi-sphenoid bone. =J=._c_.9. To be - compared with the small triangular mass in fig. 5, p. 85. - - 8. Side view of the ethmo-sphenoid mass, =J=._c_.9, showing the - lateral boundary of the front of the cerebral hemispheres, - p. 85. - - 9. Posterior aspect of the same specimen, showing parts of - the cups which covered the anterior termination of - the cerebral lobes. - - 10. Anterior view of the cerebral lobes in a natural mould - of the brain, in the collection of J. F. Walker, Esq. - It may be compared with figs. 2. and 9, p. 87. - - 11. Superior aspect of a natural mould of the brain, showing - the outline of the cerebral lobes, and the cerebellum - between them behind. Portions of bone in the temporal - region are left attached, p. 87. - - 12. Side view of the same specimen; one cerebral lobe is - seen behind the other. The anterior termination of - this figure may be compared with the posterior outline - of fig. 8. - - 13. Side view of basi-occipital bone, p. 78. - - 14. Palatal aspect of quadrate bone, showing the articulation - for the lower jaw, and the thin quadrato-jugal attached - to its outside, p. 89. - - 15. Exterior aspect of quadrato-jugal and quadrate bones. - Above the articulation in German specimens is the - outline of the orbit of the eye. - - 16. Anterior aspect of the distal end of a left quadrate bone. - - 17. Posterior aspect of the same specimen, showing the - wing for the pterygoid articulation. - -CRANIUM - -Pl. 11. - -[Illustration] - - -PLATE XII. - -Facial Bones and Lower Jaw. - - Fig. 1. Side view of the dentary bone of Ornithocheirus - machærorhynchus, showing its posterior attenuation - towards the palate. =J=._c6_.33.1, p. 113. - - 2. Superior aspect of the same specimen, showing the - palatal groove and tooth sockets. - - 3. Articular end of left ramus of mandible, =J=._4_, showing - its posterior termination, p. 91. - - 4. Articular end of left ramus of mandible, =J=._c6_.32. 2, - fractured through the articulation. - - 5. Side view of anterior part of dentary bone of Ornithocheirus - Cuvieri ? =J=._c_.15, p. 113. - - 6. Side view of anterior part of premaxillary bone of - Ornithocheirus microdon, fractured at both ends. - =J=._c_.29, p. 116. - - 7. Palatal aspect of the same specimen, showing the palatal - ridge and tooth sockets. - - 8. Palatal aspect of anterior part of premaxillary bone of - Ornithocheirus denticulatus. =J=._c5_.28.1, p. 122. - - 9. Side view of the same specimen. - - 10. Tooth, showing absorption by the successional tooth, - on the inner side of the fang. =J=._c_.27, no. 10, p. 92. - - 11. Tooth. =J=._c1_.1.4. - - 12. Fang of a large tooth. =J=._c_.27, no. 34. - - 13. Undetermined [? pterygoid end of palatine bone]. - =J=._c1_.2.7, p. 91. - - 14. Other side of same specimen. - - 15. 1 Vomer, side view. =J=._c_.10, no. 2, p. 88. - - 16. 1 Palatal view of the same specimen. - - 17. Pelvis with a bone attached like the middle part of - =J=._c_.10, no. 2. ?Neural arch of sacral vertebra. - -FACIAL BONES AND MANDIBLE - -Pl. 12. - -[Illustration] - - * * * * * - - -Transcriber Notes - - -Minor typos were corrected and the Errata list changes were applied. -Standardization of hyphenation was standardized to the most common form -used. Headers for each genera's description was standardized to list the -specimen information first. - - - - - - - -End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of The Ornithosauria: an elementary study -of the bones of pterodactyles, by Harry Govier Seeley - -*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK ORNITHOSAURIA: AN ELEMENTARY STUDY *** - -***** This file should be named 52655-0.txt or 52655-0.zip ***** -This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: - http://www.gutenberg.org/5/2/6/5/52655/ - -Produced by Tom Cosmas from materials made available on -Google Books and The Internet Archive - -Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will -be renamed. - -Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright -law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, -so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United -States without permission and without paying copyright -royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part -of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm -concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, -and may not be used if you charge for the eBooks, unless you receive -specific permission. If you do not charge anything for copies of this -eBook, complying with the rules is very easy. You may use this eBook -for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, -performances and research. They may be modified and printed and given -away--you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks -not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the -trademark license, especially commercial redistribution. - -START: FULL LICENSE - -THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE -PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK - -To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full -Project Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at -www.gutenberg.org/license. - -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works - -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or -destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your -possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a -Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound -by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the -person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph -1.E.8. - -1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this -agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. - -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the -Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection -of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual -works in the collection are in the public domain in the United -States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the -United States and you are located in the United States, we do not -claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, -displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as -all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope -that you will support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting -free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm -works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the -Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work. You can easily -comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the -same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when -you share it without charge with others. - -1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are -in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, -check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this -agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, -distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any -other Project Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no -representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any -country outside the United States. - -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: - -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other -immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear -prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work -on which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the -phrase "Project Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, -performed, viewed, copied or distributed: - - This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and - most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no - restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it - under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this - eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the - United States, you'll have to check the laws of the country where you - are located before using this ebook. - -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is -derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not -contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the -copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in -the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are -redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply -either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or -obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any -additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms -will be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works -posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the -beginning of this work. - -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. - -1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg-tm License. - -1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including -any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access -to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format -other than "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official -version posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site -(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense -to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means -of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original "Plain -Vanilla ASCII" or other form. Any alternate format must include the -full Project Gutenberg-tm License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. - -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -provided that - -* You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed - to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has - agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid - within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are - legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty - payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in - Section 4, "Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg - Literary Archive Foundation." - -* You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm - License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all - copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue - all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm - works. - -* You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of - any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of - receipt of the work. - -* You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work or group of works on different terms than -are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing -from both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and The -Project Gutenberg Trademark LLC, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. - -1.F. - -1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project -Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may -contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate -or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other -intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or -other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or -cannot be read by your equipment. - -1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right -of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE. - -1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium -with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you -with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in -lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person -or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second -opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If -the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing -without further opportunities to fix the problem. - -1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO -OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT -LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. - -1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of -damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement -violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the -agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or -limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or -unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the -remaining provisions. - -1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in -accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the -production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, -including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of -the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this -or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or -additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any -Defect you cause. - -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm - -Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of -computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It -exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations -from people in all walks of life. - -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future -generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see -Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at -www.gutenberg.org - - - -Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation - -The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by -U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. - -The Foundation's principal office is in Fairbanks, Alaska, with the -mailing address: PO Box 750175, Fairbanks, AK 99775, but its -volunteers and employees are scattered throughout numerous -locations. Its business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt -Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to -date contact information can be found at the Foundation's web site and -official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact - -For additional contact information: - - Dr. Gregory B. Newby - Chief Executive and Director - gbnewby@pglaf.org - -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation - -Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide -spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS. - -The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND -DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular -state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate - -While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate. - -International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. - -Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To -donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate - -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. - -Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project -Gutenberg-tm concept of a library of electronic works that could be -freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and -distributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of -volunteer support. - -Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in -the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not -necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper -edition. - -Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search -facility: www.gutenberg.org - -This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. - diff --git a/old/52655-0.zip b/old/52655-0.zip Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index c158b34..0000000 --- a/old/52655-0.zip +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/52655-h.zip b/old/52655-h.zip Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 9526ba8..0000000 --- a/old/52655-h.zip +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/52655-h/52655-h.htm b/old/52655-h/52655-h.htm deleted file mode 100644 index d568c05..0000000 --- a/old/52655-h/52655-h.htm +++ /dev/null @@ -1,9517 +0,0 @@ -<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" - "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"> -<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" lang="en"> - <head> - <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=iso-8859-1" /> - <meta http-equiv="Content-Style-Type" content="text/css" /> - <title> - The Ornithosauria:The Ornithosauria: an Elementary Study of the Bones of Pterodactyles, by Harry Govier Seeley, a Project Gutenberg eBook. - </title> - <style type="text/css"> - -body {margin-left: 10%; margin-right: 10%;} - -p {margin-top: .75em; text-align: justify; - margin-bottom: .75em; text-indent: 1.5em;} - -hr {width: 33%; margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 1em; - margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; clear: both;} - -hr.chap {width: 65%; margin-top: 2em;} -hr.full {width: 95%; margin-top: 2em;} -hr.tb {width: 45%;} -hr.r20 {width: 20%; margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 1em;} -hr.r40 {width: 40%; margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 1em;} - -table {margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; border-collapse: collapse;} - -.pagenum {position: absolute; right: 3.5%; - font-size: small; text-align: right; color: #808080;} /* page numbers */ - -.smcap {font-variant: small-caps;} -.center {text-align: center; margin:0; text-indent: 0;} -.smaller {font-size: 0.8em;} -.larger {font-size: 1.25em;} -.tdl {text-align: left;} -.tdr {text-align: right;} -.tdl2 {text-align: left; padding-left:2em;} -.tdl4 {text-align: left; padding-left:4em;} -.p0 {text-indent: 0;} -.ind2em {padding-left: 2em;} -.padlf4 {padding-left: 4em;} -.padlf8 {padding-left: 8em;} -h1, h2, .caption1, .caption2, .caption3, .caption4 {font-weight: bold; text-align: center; text-indent:0;} -h1, .caption1 {font-size:2.00em; margin-top: 1.5em;} -h2, .caption2 {font-size:1.50em; margin-top: 1.0em;} -.caption3 {font-size:1.25em; margin-top: 0.5em;} -.caption4 {font-size:1.15em; margin-top: 0.5em;} -.caption4nbh {font-size:1.15em; margin-left: 2em; text-indent: -2em; text-align: justify;} -.pmt4 {margin-top: 4em;} -.pmt2 {margin-top: 2em;} -.pmb2 {margin-bottom: 2em;} -.pmb4 {margin-bottom: 4em;} - -/* Images */ - -.fig_center {margin: auto; text-align: center;} - -.fig_left {float: left; clear: left; margin-left: 0; - margin-bottom: 1em; margin-top: 1em; - margin-right: 1em; padding: 0; text-align: center;} - -.fig_caption {font-size: 0.8em; margin-bottom: 1em; - margin-left: 2em; text-indent: -2em; text-align: justify;} - -.tb_stars {text-align: center; margin:0; text-indent: 0; - letter-spacing: 1.5em; font-size: 1.25em;} -.hanging {margin-left: 2em; text-indent: -2em; text-align: justify;} -.hang1 {margin-left: 6em; text-indent: -6em; text-align: justify;} -.hang2 {margin-left: 6em; text-indent: -4em; text-align: justify;} -.blockquot {margin: 0 2.5em; } -.vtop {vertical-align: top;} -.vbot {vertical-align: bottom;} - -/* Transcriber's notes */ -.trans_notes {background-color: #e6e6fa; color: black; padding:1.5em; - margin-bottom:5em;} - -/* Footnotes */ -.footnote {margin-left: 10%; margin-right: 10%; font-size: 0.9em;} -.footnote .label {position: absolute; right: 84%; text-align: right;} -.fnanchor {vertical-align: super; font-size: .8em; text-decoration: none;} - -sub {font-size: .75em; position: relative; top:-0.25em; left:-0.15em;} -sup {font-size: .75em; position: relative; top:+0.25em; left:+0.15em;} - -.div_center {margin: 2em 0; width: 80%; text-align: center;} - - </style> - </head> -<body> - - -<pre> - -The Project Gutenberg EBook of The Ornithosauria: an elementary study of -the bones of pterodactyles, by Harry Govier Seeley - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most -other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions -whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of -the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at -www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you'll have -to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this ebook. - -Title: The Ornithosauria: an elementary study of the bones of pterodactyles - made from fossil remains found in the Cambridge Upper - Greensand, and arranged in the Woodwardian museum of the - University of Cambridge - -Author: Harry Govier Seeley - -Release Date: July 27, 2016 [EBook #52655] - -Language: English - -Character set encoding: ISO-8859-1 - -*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK ORNITHOSAURIA: AN ELEMENTARY STUDY *** - - - - -Produced by Tom Cosmas from materials made available on -Google Books and The Internet Archive - - - - - - -</pre> - - - - -<div class="trans_notes"> -<p class="caption2">Transcriber Note</p> -<p>All corrections listed in the "<a href="#ERRATA">Errata</a>" have been made in - the text. Linking text for the plates has been added to the "Contents".</p> -</div> - - -<div class="fig_center" style="width: 287px;"> -<img src="images/cover.jpg" width="287" height="457" alt="" /> -</div> - - -<hr class="chap" /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_i" id="Page_i">« i »</a></span></p> - -<p class="caption1">THE ORNITHOSAURIA:</p> - - -<p class="center">AN ELEMENTARY STUDY</p> - - -<p class="center">OF</p> - - -<p class="pmb4 caption3">THE BONES OF PTERODACTYLES.</p> - -<hr class="chap" /> - - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_ii" id="Page_ii">« ii »</a></span></p> - -<div class="fig_center" style="width: 79px; margin-top: 4em;"> -<img src="images/text_cambridge_sm.png" width="79" height="18" alt="Cambridge:" /> -</div> - -<p class="pmb4 center">PRINTED BY G. J. CLAY, M.A.<br /> -AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.</p> - - -<hr class="chap" /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_iii" id="Page_iii">« iii »</a></span></p> - - -<p class="caption1">THE ORNITHOSAURIA:</p> - -<p class="center">AN ELEMENTARY STUDY</p> - -<p class="center">OF</p> - -<p class="caption3">THE BONES OF PTERODACTYLES.</p> - - -<p class="caption4"><i>MADE FROM FOSSIL REMAINS FOUND IN THE<br /> -CAMBRIDGE UPPER GREENSAND,</i></p> - -<p class="pmt2 center">AND</p> - -<p class="caption4">ARRANGED IN THE WOODWARDIAN MUSEUM OF THE<br /> -UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE</p> - -<p class="pmt2 center">BY</p> - - -<p class="caption3">HARRY GOVIER SEELEY,</p> - -<p class="center">OF ST. JOHN'S COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE.</p> - - -<p class="pmt2 pmb2 caption4"><i>WITH TWELVE PLATES.</i></p> - - -<p class="pmt2 pmb2 center">"<i>And when the appointed end comes, they lie not dishonoured in<br /> -forgetfulness</i>,"—<span class="smcap">Xenoph.</span> <i>Memor.</i> Book 2, c. 1, § 83.</p> - - -<div class="fig_center" style="width: 92px;"> -<img src="images/text_cambridge.png" width="92" height="23" alt="Cambridge:" /> -</div> - -<p class="caption3">DEIGHTON, BELL, AND CO.<br /> -<span class="smaller">LONDON: BELL AND DALDY.<br /> -1870.</span></p> - - -<p class="center pmb2">[<i>All Rights reserved.</i>]</p> - - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_iv" id="Page_iv">« iv »</a><br /> -<a name="Page_v" id="Page_v">« v »</a></span></p> - -<p class="pmt4 pmb4 caption4nbh"><i><span class="smcap larger">The</span> expense of printing this volume has been -defrayed out of the Funds of the <span class="smcap larger">Syndics -of the University Press</span>; and <span class="smcap larger">Professor -Sedgwick</span> hereby expresses his grateful thanks -to them for this great favour.</i></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_vi" id="Page_vi">« vi »</a><br /> -<a name="Page_vii" id="Page_vii">« vii »</a></span></p> - - - - -<p class="caption2">PREFACE.</p> - - -<p><span class="smcap">This</span> memoir is a portion of the Catalogue of the -Woodwardian Museum which has been made at Professor -Sedgwick's request and at his cost. When the Professor -laid upon me his commands to prepare a Catalogue of the -Museum, it was planned in three distinct works. First, a -series of indexes to the specimens in the great divisions into -which the Museum is arranged; secondly, a series of memoirs -upon the orders and classes of animals concerning which -new knowledge is given by fossils in the Museum; and, -thirdly, memoirs descriptive of those species contained in -the arranged collections which are at present unknown in -scientific writings.</p> - -<p>For the convenience of students the Catalogue is made -in parts. The Syndics of the University Press printed last -autumn as an example of the "Indexes to the Museum," an -Index to the Pterodactyles, Birds, and Reptiles from the -Secondary Strata. And this memoir is an example of the -second kind of Catalogue, which explains the structures of -the Pterodactyles of the Cambridge Greensand. In its progress -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_viii" id="Page_viii">« viii »</a></span> -questions have arisen which necessitated an examination -both of the method, of research in comparative anatomy -and of its results in classification. And in so far as the -views here advanced differ from those commonly taught, the -discrepancy is due to the writer's imperfect faith in the -results of the inductive method of research, as commonly -used by modern writers on Palæontology. It has not been -consistent with the plan of this little work to do more than -scatter through it a few hints upon method, 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 Reptiles. The views here urged have however -but little of novelty. The name Ornithosauria was -proposed by the distinguished naturalist Prince Charles -Bonaparte in 1838. The group as an order was recognized -by Von Meyer in 1830. The affinities of the brain appear -to have been detected by Oken, and the bird-like character -of the respiratory system was expounded by Von Meyer. -And most of whatever this memoir contains has been -already thought or discovered by the German philosophers, -who have had the Pterodactyles as fossils of their fatherland, -though my own conclusions were arrived at separately -and from different materials.</p> - -<p>The oldest Ornithosaurians are from the Muschelkalk -of Germany. In England the oldest are from the Lias,—several -species of Dimorphodon—a genus in some respects -nearly resembling the Pterosaurians of the Cambridge Upper -Greensand. In the Oolite of Stonesfield are several species -of Rhamphorhynchus or a similar genus. The great Pælolithic -period from the Oxford Clay to the Kimeridge Clay, -has yielded in its several divisions small Pterodactyles of -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_ix" id="Page_ix">« ix »</a></span> -new species. And the Psammolithic period from the Portland -Sand to the Lower Greensand has afforded many -excellent remains both of true Pterosaurians in the Purbeck, -Wealden, and Potton Sands, and of animals which indicate -a new order of Ornithosauria having affinities with Von -Meyer's thick footed saurians, the Dinosauria. In the Cretaceous -series, Galt, Upper Greensand, and Chalk all have -representatives of the Pterosauria; but no English stratum -has hitherto yielded so many as the Cambridge Upper -Greensand. From this formation the collection accumulated -during Prof. Sedgwick's long professoriate is unequalled; -though, excepting a few fine bones from the Chalk and the -Purbeck Limestone, the Woodwardian Museum is as yet -deficient in Ornithosaurians from the other Secondary Rocks. -Until descriptions of these animals shall have been published -a classification of the Ornithosauria must necessarily be provisional. -And it cannot be expected that descriptions of the -structure of Cretaceous Pterosaurians here given will hold -good for all the Ornithosaurian sub-class.</p> - -<p>Finally, I have gratefully to express my thanks to the -many friends, English and German, who have aided me with -specimens and with their writings; to the chiefs and officers -of the English museums, especially Prof. Owen, Prof Humphry, -Prof Newton, Prof Phillips, Prof Flower, and Prof. -Huxley; to the officers of the University Library, especially -Mr Bradshaw, and Mr Crotch, for aid in consulting books; -but chiefly to Prof Sedgwick, who while employing me as -his paid Assistant to aid him in his Museum work, has -generously encouraged me to carry on for several years, without -restraint and as part of my daily labour, an investigation -of which this treatise is the first fruit. Prof. Sedgwick -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_x" id="Page_x">« x »</a></span> -has placed at my disposal an ample number of copies for -distribution among those who take an interest in the Museum; -and especially among those who have contributed to -the Ornithosaurian collections, and aided me in my work.</p> - -<p class="ind2em"><i>January 3, 1870.</i></p> - -<hr class="chap" /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_xi" id="Page_xi">« xi »</a></span></p> - - - - -<p class="caption2">CONTENTS.</p> - - -<table style="width: 20em;" summary="TOC1"> -<tr> - <td></td> - <td class="tdr smaller"><i>Page</i></td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">Introduction</span></td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_1">1</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdl2">Materials</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_1">1</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdl2">History</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_3">3</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdl2">Organization</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_7">7</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdl4">Cuvier</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_7">7</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdl4">Sömmerring</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_10">10</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdl4">Oken</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_10">10</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdl4">Wagler</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_11">11</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdl4">Goldfuss</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_11">11</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdl4">Wagner</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_14">14</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdl4">Quenstedt</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_17">17</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdl4">Burmeister</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_17">17</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdl4">Von Meyer</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_17">17</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdl2">Another view of the Ornithosauria</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_24">24</a></td> -</tr> -</table> - -<hr class="r20" /> - -<p class="center">Osteological collection illustrative of modifications of Ornithosauria in - the Cambridge Greensand, pp. 28-94.</p> - -<table style="width: 20em;" summary="TOC1"> -<tr> - <td class="tdl2">Sternum</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_28">28</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdl2">Coracoid</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_32">32</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdl2">Scapula</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_35">35</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdl2">Humerus</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_38">38</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdl2">Radius and Ulna</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_42">42</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdl2">Proximal carpal</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_48">48</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdl2">Distal carpal</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_50">50</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdl2">Lateral carpal</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_51">51</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdl2">Metacarpal bone of wing-finger</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_53">53</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdl2">First phalange of wing-finger</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_56">56</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdl2">Second phalange of wing-finger</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_57">57</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdl2">Claw phalange</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_59">59</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdl2">Os innominatum</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_59">59</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdl2">Femur - <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_xii" id="Page_xii">« xii »</a></span></td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_62">62</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdl2">Tibia</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_62">62</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdl2">Tarso-metatarsus</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_63">63</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdl2">Atlas and axis</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_64">64</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdl2">Cervical vertebræ</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_65">65</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdl2">Dorsal vertebræ</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_69">69</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdl2">Sacrum</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_73">73</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdl2">Caudal vertebræ</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_75">75</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdl2">Bones of the head</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_77">77</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdl2">Basi-oocipital bone</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_78">78</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdl2">Back of the cranium</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_80">80</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdl2">Back of another cranium</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_84">84</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdl2">Ethmo-sphenoid</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_85">85</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdl2">Mould of the brain-cavity</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_87">87</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdl2">?Vomer</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_88">88</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdl2">Quadrate bone</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_89">89</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdl2">?Pterygoid end of palatine bone</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_91">91</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdl2">Premaxillary bones</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_91">91</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdl2">Lower jaw</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_91">91</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdl2">Teeth</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_92">92</a></td> -</tr> -</table> - -<hr class="r20" /> - -<table style="width: 20em;" summary="TOC1"> -<tr> - <td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">Conclusion</span></td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_94">94</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdl2">A summing up</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_94">94</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdl2">Restoration</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_103">103</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdl2">Speculations on habits and aspect</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_104">104</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdl2">Notes on German specimens</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_106">106</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdl2">Classification</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_108">108</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdl2">Synopsis of species</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_112">112</a></td> -</tr> -</table> - - -<hr class="r20" /> - -<table style="width: 20em;" summary="TOC1"> -<tr> - <td class="tdl">Appendix</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_129">129</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdl">Index</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_133">133</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdl">Plates, and explanation of Plates.</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#p_i">Plates</a></td> -</tr> -</table> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_xiii" id="Page_xiii">« xiii »</a></span></p> - - -<p class="caption2"><a id="ERRATA"></a>ERRATA.</p> - - -<table summary="errata"> -<tr> - <td class="smaller">PAGE</td> - <td class="smaller">LINE</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_4">4</a>,</td> - <td class="tdr">2,</td> - <td></td> - <td class="tdl">from bottom, <i>for</i> procælian <i>read</i> procœlian.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_7">7</a>,</td> - <td class="tdr">13,</td> - <td></td> - <td class="tdl"><i>for</i> Ossements <i>read</i> Ossemens.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_8">8</a>,</td> - <td></td> - <td></td> - <td class="tdl">last line, paragraph (2), <i>for</i> outermost <i>read</i> innermost.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_10">10</a>,</td> - <td class="tdr">21,</td> - <td rowspan="3"><img src="images/bracer_60.png" width="11" height="60" alt="}" /></td> - <td class="tdl" rowspan="3"><i>for</i> Sömmering <i>read</i> Sömmerring.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_11">11</a>,</td> - <td class="tdr">5,</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_11">11</a>,</td> - <td class="tdr">13,</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_14">14</a>,</td> - <td></td> - <td></td> - <td class="tdl">note, <i>for</i> Beyerischen <i>read</i> Bayerischen.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_15">15</a>,</td> - <td class="tdr">5,</td> - <td></td> - <td class="tdl"><i>for</i> ?zygapophyses <i>read</i> spinous-processes.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_17">17</a>,</td> - <td class="tdr">6,</td> - <td></td> - <td class="tdl">from bottom, <i>for</i> Herman <i>read</i> Hermann.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_37">37</a>,</td> - <td class="tdr">5,</td> - <td></td> - <td class="tdl">from bottom, <i>after</i> "spine as" <i>insert</i> "are"</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_92">92</a>,</td> - <td></td> - <td></td> - <td class="tdl">line above 'the Dentary Bone,' <i>for</i> Pterodactyle <i>read</i> Pterodactyles.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_97">97</a>,</td> - <td class="tdr">11,</td> - <td></td> - <td class="tdl"><i>for</i> Günter <i>read</i> Günther.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_99">99</a>,</td> - <td class="tdr">4,</td> - <td></td> - <td class="tdl"><i>for</i> Ichthyopteria <i>read</i> Ichthyopterygia.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_101">101</a>,</td> - <td class="tdr">11,</td> - <td></td> - <td class="tdl">from bottom, <i>for</i> procælous <i>read</i> procœlous.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_102">102</a>,</td> - <td class="tdr">15,</td> - <td></td> - <td class="tdl"><i>for</i> procælous <i>read</i> procœlous.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_111">111</a>,</td> - <td class="tdr">8,</td> - <td></td> - <td class="tdl"><i>for</i> Sömmering <i>read</i> Sömmerring.</td> -</tr> -</table> - -<p class="pmb4 center"><i>For</i> epipubic bone <i>read</i> prepubic bone, pp. <a href="#Page_61">61</a>, <a href="#Page_102">102</a>, <a href="#Page_109">109</a>, <a href="#Page_110">110</a>, <a href="#Page_111">111</a>, and <a href="#p_viii">pl. 8</a>.</p> - - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_1" id="Page_1">« 1 »</a></span></p> - - - - -<p class="caption2">INTRODUCTION</p> - -<p class="center">TO THE</p> - -<p class="caption3">OSTEOLOGY OF THE ORNITHOSAURIA FROM THE -CAMBRIDGE UPPER GREENSAND.</p> - -<hr class="r20" /> - - -<p class="caption3"><a name="Materials" id="Materials"><span class="smcap">Materials.</span></a></p> - - -<p>The Cambridge Upper Greensand has yielded to collectors bones -which illustrate nearly every part of the skeleton of the animals -that are commonly named Pterodactyles. Large collections have -been acquired for the Woodwardian Museum. A series of more -than 500 bones have been arranged to exemplify the osteology -and organization of the Ornithosauria in the area when the Cambridge -Greensand was deposited. 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 -relics. Another collection of nearly 400 bones has been arranged, -which displays in association, as they were found entombed in the -old Greensand sea-bed, the remains of the skeletons of thirty-three -animals of the Pterodactyle kind. The whole of the remains -from this formation hitherto gathered cannot be computed to have -pertained to fewer than 150 individuals, which indicate a new -sub-class of animals, two new genera and at least twenty-five new -species.</p> - -<p>The bones were mostly of a paper or card-like thinness, and -were originally hollow like the thin bones of birds. In the jaws of -other animals, and in the sea, they were easily fractured, so that -proximal ends and distal ends and shafts and split bones abound, -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_2" id="Page_2">« 2 »</a></span> -while perfect bones are almost unknown. Even those bones like -the carpals, which almost retain their entirety, invariably show indications -of having been rolled on the sea-shore among the nodules -of phosphate of lime with which they now occur, in their angular -margins being rounded, and in the removal of slender processes. -The rock in which these fossils are found is a thin bed of chalky -marl which is heavily charged with dark-green grains of Glauconite, -and is quarried largely, and entirely dug away to be deprived -of the dark-brown nodules of phosphate of lime with which it is -stored. In digging and in the subsequent washing, the workmen, -stimulated by an ample reward, pick out the fossils as they are -discovered. They are separated easily from the matrix of investing -marl, so that every aspect of each bone is seen, except for the -occasionally adherent oysters and the masses of phosphate of lime, -with which material the bones are also filled. Hence these remains -afford facilities for the study of the <i>joints</i> such as no other -specimens have presented; and from their large size and comparatively -great numbers, render easy the labour of the student who -seeks to contrast them with the bones of other animals.</p> - -<p>The osteological collection has been formed without regard to -species or genera, and arranged to exhibit the structure and organization -of the tribe of animals. So far as possible each bone, as -humerus, femur, &c., has its variations of structures and form -contrasted on a single tablet. The series comprises the following -bones:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p class="p0">Fore-part of sternum.<br /> -Coracoid (perfect).<br /> -Scapula (nearly perfect).<br /> -Humerus (perfect).<br /> -?Radius (proximal end).<br /> -Radius (distal end).<br /> -?Ulna (proximal end).<br /> -Ulna (distal end).<br /> -Proximal carpal.<br /> -Distal carpal.<br /> -Lateral carpal.<br /> -Wing-metacarpal (proximal and distal ends).<br /> -First phalange (proximal and distal ends).<br /> -Second phalange (proximal end).<br /> -Metacarpal or metatarsal (distal end).<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_3" id="Page_3">« 3 »</a></span><br /> -Claw phalange.<br /> -Os innominatum (parts of ilium, ischium, and pubis).<br /> -Femur (perfect).<br /> -?Tibia (proximal end).<br /> -Atlas and axis.<br /> -Cervical vertebræ.<br /> -Dorsal vertebræ.<br /> -Sacrum and sacral vertebræ.<br /> -Caudal vertebræ.<br /> -Lower jaw (dentary and articular ends).<br /> -Premaxillary bones, &c.<br /> -Teeth.<br /> -Quadrate bone (distal end with quadrato-jugal).<br /> -Ethmoid with basi-sphenoid.<br /> -Occipital and parietal segments of skulls.<br /> -Basi-occipital and basi-temporal.<br /> -Cast of brain-cavity.</p> -</div> - -<p>They are exhibited in Compartments <i>a</i>, <i>b</i>, <i>c</i> of the Table-case of -Cabinet <b>J</b>. The letter <b>F</b> in a circle is placed against figured -specimens.</p> - - - -<p class="caption3"><span class="smcap">History.</span></p> - -<p>The Cambridge Pterodactyles first attain prominence in scientific -literature in the year 1859. Professor Owen had figured -(plate 32, fig. 6-8) fragments of bones in the Palæontographical -Society's Monograph for 1851; the distal end of a large ulna -(fig. 6); the shaft of a phalange of the wing-finger, probably the -first (fig. 7); and the upper portion of the shaft of a small humerus -showing part of the radial crest (fig. 8). Inadvertently the last -specimen was referred to the Lower Greensand. But although -fragments of humerus of Pterodactyle and vertebræ of Pterodactyloid -animals have in the last few years been gathered from the -Potton Sands, those deposits were believed to be barren of fossils -when Prof. Owen wrote; and all the Pterodactyles yet made -known from near Cambridge were collected from the Cambridge -Upper Greensand.</p> - -<p>Among the earliest successful collectors were Mr James Carter, -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_4" id="Page_4">« 4 »</a></span> -the Rev. H. G. Day, St John's Coll.; Prof. G. D. Liveing, St John's -Coll.; the Rev. T. G. Bonney, St John's Coll.; and Mr Lucas Barrett, -Trin. Coll.; and the Rev. Prof. Sedgwick, Trin. Coll., on -behalf of the Woodwardian Museum. Mr Day and Mr Bonney -both presented every specimen from their cabinets which could -enrich the University collection. And in the last ten years the -Woodwardian Museum has acquired, through the skillful collecting -of the Messrs Farren, the present materials. The associated sets of -bones were formed by William and Robert Farren, who, obtaining -the specimens from day to day as they were discovered, were -enabled to put together such parts of the skeleton as remained -together on the sea-bottom. These collections will hereafter be -used for the elucidation of species. They are the only materials -which can give the proportions of the Cambridge Ornithosaurians, -and the contrast of aspect which distinguished the living animals -from those from other rocks.</p> - -<p>The other collections of these fossils are those of Mr William -Reed and Mr J. F. Walker at York, the Museum of Practical -Geology, and the British Museum.</p> - -<p>The Woodwardian specimens as collected were placed in the -hands of Prof. Owen, and were first made known in the Professor's -lectures on reptiles and birds delivered at the Museum of -Practical Geology in 1858. In that year Prof. Owen communicated -to the British Association for the Advancement of Science, -and printed in their Report, the matter of the memoir which was -published with plates by the Palæontographical Society in 1859. -In this latter year Prof. Owen communicated to the Royal Society -an account of the vertebral column of Pterodactyles. In 1859 -Prof. Owen also produced a classification of recent and fossil reptiles -at the meeting of the British Association, in which the order -Pterosauria appears with new characters—such as the pneumatic -structure of most of the bones—drawn from Cambridge specimens. -In 1860 Prof. Owen produced another memoir on Pterodactyles, -which was published by the Palæontographical Society. A brief -account of the tribe appeared about the same time in the Professor's -<i>Palæontology</i>.</p> - -<p>In these writings are descriptions of the various parts of the -vertebral column. Their procœlian centra are described, and the -pneumatic foramina are noticed and supposed to have communicated -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_5" id="Page_5">« 5 »</a></span> -with air-cells. They are compared with birds, and distinguished -from birds; but although the order is classed with reptiles -no contrast with reptiles is made. Other bones described are a -basi-occipital, and a doubtful bone, then thought to be a frontal, -but which is more like the neural region of the sacrum.</p> - -<p>The sternum is compared with the sternum of the birds -Apteryx and Aptenodytes, is stated to be formed, in the main, on -the Ornithic type, and to possess distinct synovial articular cavities -for the coracoids such as only occur in birds. The inter-coracoid -process of the sternum is compared with that of Bats, Birds, and -Crocodiles.</p> - -<p>The mechanism of the framework of the wings is said to be -much more bird-like than bat-like, the anchylosed scapula and -coracoid being remarkably similar to those of a bird of flight. -The coracoid is shorter and straighter in birds than in Pterodactyles, -but no comparisons are made with reptiles.</p> - -<p>The humerus is known only by the proximal end. It is said to -conform at its proximal end more with the Crocodilian than with -the Avian type, but to have the radial crest much more developed -than in either Crocodile or Bird. The bone is, however, chiefly -compared with birds, and is figured between corresponding bones -of a Vulture and a Crocodile. The pneumatic texture is said to -be as well marked as in any bird of flight.</p> - -<p>Of the carpus it is said, the Pterodactyle, in the complete -separation of the metacarpus from the antibrachium by two successive -carpals answering to the two rows, adheres more closely -to the reptilian type than to that of birds. But the row which -was regarded as proximal is the distal row, while the supposed -distal row is proximal.</p> - -<p>The claw-phalange and distal end of the wing-metacarpal, the -mandible, teeth, and jaw are the other bones described, but their -comparative osteology is not discussed. In the Professor's account -of a fragment of a jaw it is said, "The evidence of the large and -obviously pneumatic vacuities now filled with matrix, and the -demonstrable thin layer of compact bone forming their outer wall, -permit no reasonable doubt as to the Pterosaurian nature of this -fossil. All other parts of the flying reptile being in proportion, it -must have appeared with outstretched pinions like the soaring -Roc of Arabian romance, but with the demoniacal features of the -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_6" id="Page_6">« 6 »</a></span> -leathern wings with crooked claws, and of the gaping mouth with -threatening teeth, superinduced."</p> - -<p>When the specimens on which Prof. Owen had founded the -foregoing views of the osteology and classification of these animals -were at length returned to the Woodwardian Museum, it became -a duty of the present writer to arrange and name them. And in -a Memoir on Pterodactyles which was communicated to the Cambridge -Philosophical Society and read March 7 and May 2 and 16, -1864, a position was claimed for them, distinct from reptiles, as a -separate sub-class of Sauropsida, nearly related to birds.</p> - -<p>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 (Sauromia)," with enlarged drawings -of the skull and some of the other bones, in which the conclusions -arrived at were that, excepting the teeth, there is little in such -parts of the head as are preserved to distinguish the Cambridge -Pterodactyles from birds; and that the remainder of the skeleton -gives a general support to the inference from the skull.</p> - -<p>Papers were communicated to the Cambridge Philosophical -Society on February 17, 1868, on indications of Mammalian affinities -in Pterodactyles in the pelvis and femur, and February 22, -1869, on the bird-like characters of the brain and metatarsus in -the Pterodactyls from the Cambridge Greensand. The other -references to Cambridge specimens are in a paper "On the literature -of English Pterodactyles" in the <i>Annals and Magazine of -Natural History</i> for Feb. 1865, and in "An epitome of the evidence -that Pterodactyles are not reptiles, but a new sub-class of -vertebrate animals allied to birds," in the same magazine for May, -1866.</p> - -<p>In the meantime Prof. Owen's views have somewhat changed. -In the first volume of the <i>Comparative Anatomy and Physiology -of the Vertebrata</i> (1866), the Pterosauria are classed as the highest -group of reptiles, and take rank above the Dinosauria. In the -second volume of that work (1866), occurs the following passage:</p> - -<p>"Derivatively the class of birds is most closely connected with -the Pterosaurian order of cold-blooded air-breathers. In equivalency -it is comparable rather with such a group than with the -Reptilia in totality, or with the Mammalia."</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_7" id="Page_7">« 7 »</a></span></p> - - -<p class="caption3"><span class="smcap">Organization.</span></p> - -<p>Nearly every writer on Pterodactyles, who has expressed any -opinion at all, has formed an estimate of his own of their organization. -They have been assigned to almost all possible positions -in the vertebrate province, by great anatomists who all had before -them very similar materials. An account of these views is given -by von Meyer in his monograph of the Pterodactyles of the Lithographic -Slate. It will not be necessary to discuss these conclusions -here, 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 specimens. In England -they are classed with Reptilia, chiefly through the influence of -the discourse upon them given by Baron Cuvier in his <i>Ossemens -Fossiles</i><a name="FNanchor_1" id="FNanchor_1"></a><a href="#Footnote_1" class="fnanchor">[A]</a>. 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 reptiles. -He says,—"Ayant encore porté mon attention sur le petit os -cylindrique marqué <i>g</i> (i.e. os quadratum) qui va du crâne à l'articulation -des mâchoires, je me crus muni de tout ce qui étoit nécessaire -pour classer ostéologiquement notre animal parmi les reptiles." -The exact relations of the quadrate bone are not seen in either -Cuvier's or Goldfuss' or von Meyer's figures of this Pterodactyle, -the P. longirostris; but in von Meyer's figures of P. crassirostris, -P. longicollum, and P. Kochi it appears to be a free bone articulated -to the squamosal and petrosal region of the skull and with -the lower jaw. This is not the case with either Chelonians or Crocodiles, -which have the quadrate bone firmly packed in the skull; -nor is it paralleled even among those lizards and serpents which -have the bone as free; while, on the contrary, it is characteristic -of the whole class of birds. The form of the bone is not more -Lacertian than Avian, while its direct attachment to the bone of -the brain-case finds no parallel among lizards, but is exactly paralleled -in all birds.</p> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_1" id="Footnote_1"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1"><span class="label">[A]</span></a> Tome <span class="smcap">V.</span> Part a, pp. 358, 383. Edition, 1814.</p></div> - -<p>Cuvier then goes on to say, "Ce n'étoit pas non plus un -oiseau, quoiqu'il eût été rapporté aux oiseaux palmipèdes par un -grand naturaliste<a name="FNanchor_2" id="FNanchor_2"></a><a href="#Footnote_2" class="fnanchor">[B]</a>." Which position he supports as follows:—</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_8" id="Page_8">« 8 »</a></span></p> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_2" id="Footnote_2"></a><a href="#FNanchor_2"><span class="label">[B]</span></a> Blumenbach.</p></div> - -<p>(1) "Un oiseau auroit des côtes plus larges, et munies chacune -d'une apophyse récurrente<a name="FNanchor_3" id="FNanchor_3"></a><a href="#Footnote_3" class="fnanchor">[C]</a>; son metatarse n'auroit formé qu'un -seul os, et n'auroit pas été composé d'autanut d'os qu'il a de doigts." -These, though they may not be characters which are those of -birds, are certainly not eminently reptilian. The elongated form -of the tarsals in birds is peculiar, but quite functional, as may be -seen among the Penguins, where, when the so-called tarso-metatarsal -bone is no longer erect, it becomes much shorter, and is -nearly separated into three distinct bones. The cretaceous Pterodactyles -appear to have this bone exactly like that of birds.</p> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_3" id="Footnote_3"></a><a href="#FNanchor_3"><span class="label">[C]</span></a> This shown in other specimens since figured, and in the specimen from -Stonesfield in the Oxford Museum.</p></div> - -<p>(2) "Son aile n'auroit eu que trois divisions après l'avantbras, -et non pas cinq comme celle-ce." This is a difference, but a difference -of detail only, and not a reptilian character. The creatures -have wings; and no reptile known, from recent or fossil specimens, -has wings. The general plan of the wing, though very -unlike, approximates to that of a bird. Most birds have two -phalanges in the long finger, though some have three. One Pterodactyle -is described as having only two phalanges in the wing-finger, -while most of the German specimens appear to have four -phalanges. In birds the longest finger appears to be the middle -one, while in Pterodactyles it is the innermost one.</p> - -<p>(3) "Son bassin auroit eu une toute autre étendue et sa queue -osseuse un toute autre forme; elle seroit élargie, et non pas grêle -et conique." The pelvis of Pterodactyle is not reptilian, and no -living reptile has a pelvis like it. It is not unlike the pelvis -of a Monotreme, but the ilium is more Avian. It resembles the -pelvis of Dicynodon. And the discovery of a long-tailed bird-like -the Archæopteryx shows that the tail is like that of old birds, -even if it also presents some analogy in form to that of certain -reptiles and mammals.</p> - -<p>(4) "Il n'y auroit pas eu de dents au bec; les dents des -<i>harles</i> ne tiennent qu'à l'enveloppe cornée, et non à la charpente -osseuse." This is not a reptilian character. Among reptiles some -tribes have teeth, others want them; and among mammals some -animals are without teeth, though they are so characteristic of -the class. It is an anomaly that birds should all be toothless. -And so, without citing the supposed teeth of <i>Archæopteryx</i>, it may -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_9" id="Page_9">« 9 »</a></span> -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 them.</p> - -<p>(5) "Les vertèbres du cou auroient été plus nombreuses. -Aucun oiseau n'en a moins de neuf; les palmipèdes, en particulier, -en ont depuis douze jusqu'à vingt-trois, et l'on n'en voit ici -que six ou tout au plus sept." This is a variation of detail such -as, had it occurred among birds, would hardly have been deemed -evidence of their affinities. When the variation of the neck-vertebræ -ranges from 23 to 9, the further reduction of the number to -7 becomes insignificant, and does not show that the animal was a -reptile.</p> - -<p>(6) "Au contraire, les vertèbres du dos l'auroient été beau-coup -moins. Il semble qu'il y en ait plus de vingt, et les oiseaux -en ont de sept à dix, ou tout au plus onze." This modification is -obviously the result of smaller development of the pelvic bones -from front to back, and hence of the small number of vertebræ in -the sacrum. It does not support the reference of Pterodactyles to -the class of reptiles.</p> - -<p>Speaking of the teeth, it is said, "Elles sont toutes simples, -coniques, et à peu près semblables entre elles comme dans les -crocodiles, les monitors, et d'autres lézards." The teeth of Pterodactyles -are (in the skull) for the most part in the premaxillary -bones, in which it is so characteristic for the teeth of animals to, -be merely conical and simple. Therefore it would have been difficult -to imagine the teeth to have been anything but what they -are, whatever the affinities of the Pterodactyle might be.</p> - -<p>It is remarked, "La longueur du cou est proportionée à celle -de la téte. On y voit cinq vertèbres grandes et prismatiques -comme celles des oiseaux à long cou, et une plus petite se montre -à chaque extrémité." This adds nothing to the evidence for its -reptilian character.</p> - -<p>"Ce qui est le plus fait pour étonner, c'est que cette longue -téte et ce long cou soient portés sur un si petit corps; les oiseaux -seuls offrent de semblable proportions, et sans doute c'est, avec la -longueur du grand doigt, ce qui avoit determiné quelques naturalistes -à rapporter notre animal à cette classe." Nor is this -evidence that the animal was a reptile. And in many minor -matters Cuvier is careful to show how their modifications resemble -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_10" id="Page_10">« 10 »</a></span> -those of birds; and when this is not so, birds are the only animals -from which he finds them varying. And the few suggestions -which are thrown out respecting their affinities with lizards are -upon points which are also common to birds.</p> - -<p>Thus what Cuvier did was to distinguish these animals from -birds, and incidentally to show that their organization was a -modification of that of the Avian class. And the legitimate inference -would have been that their systematic place was near the -birds, and not that they were reptiles.</p> - -<p>But in Germany Cuvier's views on Pterodactyles have by no -means been submissively received; and great anatomists, since he -wrote, have propounded and defended views as various as those -of the anatomists who preceded him, and with no less confidence -in the results of their science. In the brief space at my command -it would be impossible to do justice to the works of this array of -philosophers, and therefore I present in a somewhat condensed -version the epitome of their conclusions given by Hermann von -Meyer in his <i>Reptilien aus dem Lithographischen Schiefer der -Jura</i>. They form a commentary on the casts of Solenhofen Pterodactyles -contained in the Woodwardian Museum.</p> - - -<p class="caption3"><span class="smcap">Sömmerring</span></p> - -<p>regarded the Pterodactyle as an unknown kind of bat, and -thought that Cuvier was misled by Collini's imperfect description. -He believed that he found in them different kinds of teeth as in -mammals; and regarded them as differing from bats chiefly in -having larger eye-holes, a longer neck, four fingers and four toes, -a longer metatarsus, and in having but one elongated finger; and -found the closest analogue of the fingers in Pteropus marginatus -of Bengal. And although inclined to place the Pterodactyle between -Pteropus and Galeopithecus, he suspects from the bird-like -characters of the head and feet that its true place is intermediate -between mammals and birds.</p> - - -<p class="center"><span class="smcap caption3">Oken</span><a name="FNanchor_4" id="FNanchor_4"></a><a href="#Footnote_4" class="fnanchor">[D]</a>.</p> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_4" id="Footnote_4"></a><a href="#FNanchor_4"><span class="label">[D]</span></a> <i>Isis</i>, 1818, p. 551.</p></div> - -<p>Oken reasoned carefully so far as his materials went. He -dwells much on the analogy of the wing to that of a bat, and -seems to suspect that the marsupial bones would hereafter be -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_11" id="Page_11">« 11 »</a></span> -found; and, excepting the head, finds that the other parts of the -skeleton have their corresponding bones among mammals.</p> - -<p>Afterwards, when he saw the specimens at Munich, he was so -much struck at finding the quadrate bone of Lacertian form, though -Sömmerring could not detect it even with a microscope, that he is -shaken in his mammalian faith, and inclines to consider the animal -a reptile.</p> - - -<p class="center"><span class="smcap caption3">Wagler</span><a name="FNanchor_5" id="FNanchor_5"></a><a href="#Footnote_5" class="fnanchor">[E]</a>.</p> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_5" id="Footnote_5"></a><a href="#FNanchor_5"><span class="label">[E]</span></a> <i>System der Amphibien</i>, 1830, p. 75.</p></div> - -<p>Wagler was impressed with the resemblance of the jaws and -the rounded back part of the skull to those of Dolphins, and so -far as the head went conceives it to have had nothing in common -with Lizards. He recognizes mammalian characters in the pelvis -and sternum, and fails, like Sömmerring, to detect a quadrate bone, -and finds the sum of the characters like those of other extinct -animals, such as Ichthyosaurus and Plesiosaurus, suggesting for it -a position between mammals and birds. He supposed it unable -to fly, that it never left the water, but swam about on the surface -like a swan, and sought its food on the sea-bottom. He imagined -the long arms to have been used after the fashion of turtles and -penguins to row the body along; while to the claws he attributes -the function of holding the females in the generative process.</p> - - -<p class="center"><span class="smcap caption3">Goldfuss</span><a name="FNanchor_6" id="FNanchor_6"></a><a href="#Footnote_6" class="fnanchor">[F]</a>.</p> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_6" id="Footnote_6"></a><a href="#FNanchor_6"><span class="label">[F]</span></a> <i>Nova Acta Acad. Leopold.</i>, 1831, Vol. <span class="smcap">XV.</span> Pt. <span class="smcap">I.</span> p. 103.</p></div> - -<p>sees in Pterodactyle an indication of the course that nature -took in changing the reptilian organization to that of birds and -mammals. The less important organs, those of motion, assimilate -partly to those of the bird and partly to those of the bats, but -always preserve the fundament reptile type and reptile number -of bones. The skull, fluctuating in character between the monitor -and crocodile, hides its reptile nature under the outer form of -the bird, but retains the teeth. To change the skull into a bird's -skull it would only be necessary that a few separate elements -should be blended together, and that a few peculiar bones should -be removed. The length of the neck, varying only in a few -species, is a deviation from the reptile type, and indicates an -approximation to the structure of 'the bird; but the number of -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_12" id="Page_12">« 12 »</a></span> -the vertebræ remains constant notwithstanding the increased -length. The fundamental plan of the crocodile may be recognised -in all the important parts of the vertebræ. The body of the reptile, -to be enabled to fly, would need a larger breast and a stronger -structure of the fore-limbs. The shoulder-blade of the reptile, -with its extremities forming the glenoid cavity, is necessarily -smaller and prolonged backward, and altered to resemble that of a -bird. The scapula only formed the back part of the glenoid cavity, -but it is thick and strong, suggesting an affinity with the bats.</p> - -<p>The breast-bone, in the form of a shield, is changing into that -of a bird; as are the ribs, which are attached in a peculiar way to -the vertebral column. It is really the strong sternum of the -Chameleon, with moveable dorsal vertebræ. The whole chest is -supported by the peculiar continuation of the wings of the pubic -bones (Schambein). The ischiac and pubic bones resemble those -of the Chameleon, but the ilium runs a little down, like that of -a bird, and is only slightly connected with two sacral vertebræ, as -in reptiles, prolonging itself a little upward and forward, as in -mammals. The wings of the pubic bones exist in the Turtle and -Monitor, but of small extent; they are also represented in the -mammals by the upward development of the pubic bones in those -families, genera, and species, in which nature has indicated by -variety of shape, or peculiarities of development, or by affinities -with reptiles, quite a new type and capacity for variation -within certain limits, which is especially the case with certain -Rodents and Opossums, and Monotremes. It would not be -astonishing to find in Pterodactyles the marsupial bones. And -indeed the Pterodactylus crassirostris has a small tongue-shaped -bone, probably belonging to the pelvis. The less important part -of the skeleton, the tail, is formed precisely as in mammals, and is -identical with that of the bats. Both the thigh and shin are -mammalian, and only the foot retains the same number of parts -as in reptiles.</p> - -<p>This animal was enabled by means of the pelvic bones and the -long hind-legs to sit like the squirrels.</p> - -<p>We should regard this position as natural but for the long -wing-finger hanging far down the sides. If it were to creep along -it would have the same difficulties as a bat, and the length and -weight of the head, as well as the proportional weakness of the -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_13" id="Page_13">« 13 »</a></span> -bind limb, make it improbable that they progressed by leaping. -These animals made use of their claws only to hang on to rocks and -trees and to climb up steep cliffs. They could fly with their wings, -and keep themselves aloft in order to catch insects or sea animals. -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 it. By means of their long neck, which -they usually bore curved backward in order to keep their balance, -they could stretch out their head to their prey and change their -centre of gravity, and so fly in different positions. The fundamental -type of the Crocodile and Monitor leads us to suspect that -they had a skin covered with scales. The approximation to the -shape of the Bird makes it probable that they were feathered. And -the whole outline, similar to that of the Bat, leads to the supposition -that they were covered with hair, like the Monotremes. -Goldfuss thinks he has got a clear insight into the covering of the -body and the whole condition of the wing in examining the Pt. -crassirostris. And the soft state of the stone near the bones he -attributes to the presence of the soft parts of the animal; 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<a name="FNanchor_7" id="FNanchor_7"></a><a href="#Footnote_7" class="fnanchor">[G]</a>. And on the principal slab he finds evidence that the -Pterodactyle had a mane on the neck like a horse. The tufts on -the counter slab have some similarity with the feathers of the -ostrich. Some very tender impressions on both plates still more -resemble feathers. He recognizes the outline and faint diverging -rays of a bird's feather, but never sees a strong quill. The microscope, -instead of making the image clearer, makes it, on the contrary, -vanish, because then the rough parts become prominent. -Also on the slab which contains the Pterodactylus medius<a name="FNanchor_8" id="FNanchor_8"></a><a href="#Footnote_8" class="fnanchor">[H]</a>, are seen -numerous lines and fibres diverging like a bird's feathers. And -on the upper part of the belly is the appearance of a scanty -texture of hairs and feathers. The visible marks of two cylinders -of the thickness of a quill, made of thin substance and filled with -limestone, he would regard as quills if there were clearer marks of -their feathers to be seen. As a note upon this von Meyer says, -after examining the slabs, that the particles considered by Goldfuss -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_14" id="Page_14">« 14 »</a></span> -to be hairs and feathers rest upon appearances not only to be -seen in the vicinity of Pterodactyles, but which occur upon many -other kinds of petrifactions that have nothing in common with the -Pterodactyle; and that the roughnesses of the slab have nothing -to do with the folds of the wing or the muscles.</p> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a name="Footnote_7" id="Footnote_7"></a><a href="#FNanchor_7"><span class="label">[G]</span></a> This is represented in Pl. 7, 8 of his memoir, <i>loc. cit.</i></p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a name="Footnote_8" id="Footnote_8"></a><a href="#FNanchor_8"><span class="label">[H]</span></a> Pl. 6, <i>Nova Afta Acad. Leopold</i>, Vol. <span class="smcap">XV.</span> Pt. 1.</p> -</div> - - -<p class="center"><span class="smcap caption3">Wagner</span><a name="FNanchor_9" id="FNanchor_9"></a><a href="#Footnote_9" class="fnanchor">[I]</a></p> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a name="Footnote_9" id="Footnote_9"></a><a href="#FNanchor_9"><span class="label">[I]</span></a> <i>Abhandl. Bayerischen Acad.</i> 1852, Vol. <span class="smcap">VI.</span></p> -</div> - -<p>is so convinced that the Pterodactyles are Amphibians approximating -to the Saurians, that he does not think it necessary to go -into any controversy in the matter; but he acknowledges that -their forms sometimes present peculiarities of bird and mammal. -The head especially shows a blending of the bird and reptile types. -Its outline, particularly when seen from above, is that of a long-beaked -water-bird. And the long interval between the nose-holes -and the tip of the jaw, and the peculiar fact of a hole between -the nose and eye-holes, and the want of the continuation of the -coronoid of the lower jaw, rather resemble a water-bird than a -Saurian. But the presence and the form of the teeth show it to -be a Saurian; and not only the teeth, but the configuration of the -whole back part of the skull, reproduces the type of the Monitor. -The sclerotic circle is a peculiar mark of birds and saurians. Very -peculiar, however, is the extremely short back part of the skull; -and the articulation of the lower jaw, stretched far forward and -united just under the middle of the eye-hole. The more or less -long neck, which may assume the form of an S, deviates very -much from the short stiff neck of reptiles, and is quite bird-like, -the neck-vertebræ of which those of the Pterodactyle closely resemble -in shape; while their constant number of seven reminds -us of mammals and crocodiles. The neck has the same flexibility -as in a bird. The short and weak trunk-vertebræ are in such disproportion -to the length and strength of the neck-vertebræ as is -never met with even in the birds and mammals which have the -longest necks. The trunk-vertebræ are completely separated from -each other, and may be divided into dorsal, lumbar, and sacral -vertebræ. The transverse processes of the back-vertebræ are -notched out like those of the crocodile. The tail is short in -most species, and this is a deviation from the type of the Saurians, -and an approximation to birds and to many mammals. But -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_15" id="Page_15">« 15 »</a></span> -there are some kinds with very long tails, as is the case with mammals -and usually with Saurians. But the vertebræ of these long-tailed -Pterodactyles deviate very much from those of Saurians. -And while the Saurian vertebræ are provided with long transverse -processes and upper and lower spinous-processes (Dorn-Fortsätzen), -they seem in the Pterodactyle to be almost devoid of processes -and resemble those of mammals, on the tails of which these processes -soon disappear. In a certain point of view we could say of -the vertebral column of the Pterodactyle, that it has borrowed -the neck from the bird, the trunk from the reptile, and the tail -from the mammal. The ribs are connected to the transverse processes -as in crocodiles, except with the atlas and axis. Quite in -the type of the Saurians are the abdominal ribs, which are wanting -to all birds and mammals, but often occur in the Lacertian order. -The structure of the shoulder and breast-bone separate the -Pterodactyle from the mammal, these parts being formed after -the type of the Birds and Saurians, the characters of which -are blended together. The small and elongated shoulder-blade, -like the coracoid bone, belongs to the type of the bird rather -than to that of the Saurians, of which, in reference to the last-named -bone, only crocodiles have a similar one. The breast-bone, -by its large expansion, points to the crocodiles, but at the same -time, by the want of the keel, points to the ostrich-like birds, -save that it is proportionally larger and wider than in these. The -Pterodactyle, in common with the crocodile, wants the patella. -The pelvis is formed on the type of the Saurians, although the -ilium, by length and form, points somewhat to the mammals. The -length and delicate form of the long bones of the limb, as well -as the larger development of the fore-arm than of the upper-arm, -and larger development of the lower thigh than of the upper thigh, -and the thinness and elegance and shortness of the ?fibula (Wadenbein) -have the characters of birds. The length of the middle hand -[metacarpals] resembles that of birds, but its form in Pterodactyle -is conformable to that of mammals. The first three fingers have -the form and condition of the phalanges of lizards. The phalanges -form the series 2, 3, and 4. The fourth, or air-finger, on the -contrary, is of a peculiar type, of which no analogue is found in -other animals, unless a somewhat similar arrangement be accredited -to the bats. It is of enormous length, composed of four -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_16" id="Page_16">« 16 »</a></span> -parts and without a claw. The hind-leg is, in proportion to the -fore-leg, weak, and in general does not take the bird-form, but -that of a Saurian. It has five toes, with unusual arrangement -of the phalanges into the series 1, 5, 4, 3, 2. One toe has -no nail, and the others have claws weaker than those of the -hand. It can hardly be supposed that the animal lived in the -water. All Saurians that live either in the water or on land are -short-legged; it is the same with the swimming birds. But the -Pterodactyle has its hind-legs as long as a land or air-bird; and -as in these, the shin especially exceeds the length of the thigh. -At the same time the toes, when they are in their natural position, -were so close together that we may suppose the animal not -to have been web-footed. The great development of the hand, by -means of the long middle hand and especially of the enormous -length of the air-finger, makes it probable that it was the chief -organ of flight, as in birds and bats; also deviating in a peculiar -manner from both these types, the long air-finger served to -expand the wing-membrane, which extended from the upper part -of the finger to the trunk, and which in all probability did not -touch the hind-legs. This we infer from the circumstance that -the animal, in a position with the organs of flight folded up, was -not supported like the bat on its four feet, but stood upright on -its hind-legs like a bird. Such a position presumes the same -freedom in moving the hind extremities as with birds; 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 bird. -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 balance, the neck being able to take a sigmoid curve like that -of a bird.</p> - -<p>Wagner concludes: "By these means we have recognised in -the Pterodactyle a Saurian, but of a habitude which greatly -removes him from all others of his kind, and approximates him to -birds. Excepting in ability to fly, he has nothing in common -with the birds. The opinion 'that the animal is half crocodile -half monitor disguised as a bird, but intending to be a bird,' is -therefore not only a paradox but also false. With more truth, -but less phantasy, we could say that the Pterodactyle was a -Saurian in transition to the Birds."</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_17" id="Page_17">« 17 »</a></span></p> - - -<p class="center"><span class="smcap caption3">Quenstedt</span><a name="FNanchor_10" id="FNanchor_10"></a><a href="#Footnote_10" class="fnanchor">[J]</a>.</p> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a name="Footnote_10" id="Footnote_10"></a><a href="#FNanchor_10"><span class="label">[J]</span></a> <i>Ueber Pterodactylus Suevicus.</i> Tubingen 1855.</p> -</div> - -<p>In the long thigh, with the long neck, Quenstedt sees evidence -that the animal was able to walk upright, being probably still -more upright than birds, since the great disproportion between -the neck on the one hand, and the thigh on the other, could -not have allowed a more appropriate position. At the same -time he makes a question, Did it go on four feet? But a little -later, in his book, <i>Sonst und Jetzt</i>, 1856, he gives a sketch -of the animal resting on its four legs; and remarks, "The position -upon four feet is however hypothetical, but is probable. -It had its wings folded back. The slightly curved and thin -bones of the middle hand probably served to support the flying-membrane, -and had therefore the same function as the spur-bone -in the bats." Finally, he says in his book, <i>der Jura</i>, p. 813, -"Perhaps this animal walked from time to time on four legs, -being then supported by the fore-end of the metatarsal bone."</p> - - -<p class="center"><span class="smcap caption3">Burmeister</span><a name="FNanchor_11" id="FNanchor_11"></a><a href="#Footnote_11" class="fnanchor">[K]</a>.</p> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a name="Footnote_11" id="Footnote_11"></a><a href="#FNanchor_11"><span class="label">[K]</span></a> <i>Beleuchtung uniger Pterodactylus arten.</i> 1855.</p> -</div> - -<p>entirely rejects Quenstedt's opinions with regard to their upright -position. He makes the following remarks: 'The animal walked -on the free fore-toes and bore the wings like a bat, though with the -body not in an upright position like a bird, but four-footed. The -hind-foot is much too small for such an upright position, and the -fore-foot much too strongly developed. I therefore believe that the -Pterodactyle could much better have walked four-footed than a -bat, because it possessed so much better developed fore-feet.' In the -length of the tibia Burmeister sees no reason for the upright position, -but, as he says, only a means for the wide expansion of the -flying-membrane;—and an endeavour in walking on four feet to -bring the leg into the necessary harmony with the arm, which is -so much elongated with the flat-hand.</p> - - -<p class="center"><span class="smcap caption3">Hermann von Meyer</span><a name="FNanchor_12" id="FNanchor_12"></a><a href="#Footnote_12" class="fnanchor">[L]</a>.</p> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a name="Footnote_12" id="Footnote_12"></a><a href="#FNanchor_12"><span class="label">[L]</span></a> <i>Fauna der Vorwelt. Reptilien aus dem Lithographischen schiefer.</i> Frankfurt -am Main. 1859. pp. 15-23.</p> -</div> - -<p>The skull of the Pterodactyle can only be compared with those -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_18" id="Page_18">« 18 »</a></span> -of birds and lizards. The form is essentially Avian, and the -sutures are indistinct or obliterated as in birds, while in reptiles -they are persistent The temporal bone enters into the formation -of the reservoir for the brain, which is eminently characteristic of -birds and quite different from anything found in lizards. The -snout resembles a bird in being chiefly formed by the intermaxillary -bone, which bounds the front of the anterior nares; and, as -in birds, the bone extends backward between the eye-cavities to -the frontal bone. The corresponding intermaxillary ridge of -the Monitor is of less extent.</p> - -<p>The frontal-bone forms the highest part of the skull, and is -similar to that of birds. The principal frontal is double, and -forms the upper and hind part of the cavity for the eye, and -covered the greater part of the large brain, composed of two -hemispheres, in which Oken long ago saw a similarity to the -higher animals. The arched form of the back part of the skull is -bird-like. The double parietal adjoins the principal frontal, and is -conditioned like the parietal in birds. The supra-occipital is single -as in birds, expanded, and forms the part of the skull which extends -furthest back. From the form of the back part of the -skull it may be concluded that the foramen magnum was situated -as in birds, and that the head and neck were moved as in birds, -and not as in reptiles and mammals.</p> - -<p>The temporal bone rests upon the parietal and frontal, and -forms much of the temporal foss. Its anterior border does not -appear to enter into the margin of the orbital cavity as in birds, -but seems to be replaced by the post-frontal, which resembles -that of the Chameleon. Its hindmost branch, which can hardly -be supposed to be the jugal, forms the outer boundary of the temporal -foss by uniting with a process which is probably part of the -mastoid. A similar closing of the cavity for the temporal muscles -is also to be found in birds. The jugal and maxillary do not -follow the bird type. The jugal consists of a single bone which -forms the greater part of the anterior and inferior boundary of -the cavity of the eye, which is surrounded with bones, as in -Dragons and Iguana. In those birds in which the cavity of -the eye is surrounded with bones the jugal does not enter into it. -As in lizards, at its upper end the jugal is commonly connected -with the lachrymal, which bone is like that of a bird. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_19" id="Page_19">« 19 »</a></span> -A bone, which appears to be the pre-frontal, enters into the back -of the nasal aperture.</p> - -<p>The nostril is double and often of large size.</p> - -<p>The perforation in the skull between the orbit and nares is -bird-like.</p> - -<p>The quadrate bone is not quadratic as in birds, but cylindrical -and shaft-like, as in the Chameleon. The articulation of the -quadrate with the lower jaw is placed further forward than in -birds and reptiles. The lower jaw, but for the teeth, has great -similarity with that of a bird. Among reptiles its nearest resemblance -is with Chameleons and Turtles. The hyoid is more bird-like -than reptile-like.</p> - -<p class="caption4"><i>Ribs and vertebræ.</i></p> - -<p>It is uncertain whether the Pterodactyle had lumbar vertebræ. -If they are wanting, therein the animals resemble birds, of which -we are reminded in the short and stiff back and moveable neck. -Pterodactyles possess a smaller number of neck-vertebræ and a -larger number of back-vertebræ than birds. The long neck-vertebræ -are paralleled by those of water-birds, by the Giraffe, the -Camel, Protosaurus and Tanystrophæus. There are 7 cervical vertebræ, -the 1st very short, 2nd not longer, but rather shorter than -those which follow. There are in Pterodactyles from 12 to 16 -dorsal vertebræ, while birds have never more than 11. It is not -certain whether all Pterodactyles have an os sacrum; most have it, -and therein resemble Mammals, Birds, and some fossil Saurians. -In Pterodactylus dubius and P. grandipelvis and P. Kochi there -are 5 or 6 vertebræ in the sacrum. In birds the sacral vertebræ -vary from 5 to 22; in bats the number is from 5 to 6.</p> - -<p>The short tails of Pterodactyles are more like those of mammals -than birds; they include from 10 to 15 tail-vertebræ. In -birds there are from 6 to 10 tail-vertebræ. Rhamphorhynchus has -38-40 tail-vertebræ, secured between thread-bones like those in -the tail of rats.</p> - -<p>The dorsal ribs are reptile-like. In herbivorous mammals and -birds they are broader. A few species have the first pair of ribs -large. The abdominal ribs belong neither to birds nor mammals, -but are reptilian. In Rhamphorhynchus Gemmingi there are 6 -pairs of sternal ribs.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_20" id="Page_20">« 20 »</a></span></p> - - -<p class="caption4"><i>The sternum</i></p> - -<p>is bird-like, somewhat resembling lizards. It consists of a simple -flat bone, but without the keel of a bird's sternum. It is relatively -smaller than in birds, is broader than long, and therefore -comparable with Struthious birds. They were not able flyers, -since the part to which the muscles for flight should be affixed is -wanting. And for the same reason they could not have been -wandering animals. But Moles possess a keel on the breast-bone, -which therefore is no evidence of flight. And in swimming-birds -which do not fly the keel is much developed; and in swimming-birds -the sternum is also long, so that neither length nor keel -prove flight. So far as the evidence from the sternum goes, they -were neither water-birds, nor diggers, but denizens of the air. -In Rhamphorhynchus Gemmingi, besides the usual breast-bone, -there is a plate with breast-ribs uniting the sternum with the -dorsal ribs; they are cartilaginous, or horny, as in birds.</p> - - -<p class="caption4"><i>The scapula and coracoid</i></p> - -<p>present the closest resemblance with those of a bird, and only -deviate in the coracoid not being inserted in the breast-bone in -the manner of birds<a name="FNanchor_13" id="FNanchor_13"></a><a href="#Footnote_13" class="fnanchor">[M]</a>. It at first seemed that Rhamphorhynchus -differed from Pterodactyle in having the scapula and coracoid -anchylosed. In R. Gemmingi the bones are either separated or -only slightly united.</p> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a name="Footnote_13" id="Footnote_13"></a><a href="#FNanchor_13"><span class="label">[M]</span></a> See however Pl. 1 and 2 of this memoir.</p> -</div> - -<p>Oken and Goldfuss thought that the scapula consists of an -upper and under part, as in lizards. Von Meyer sees nothing -of the kind.</p> - - -<p class="caption4"><i>The humerus</i></p> - -<p>presents no striking similarity with birds, and differs from bats.</p> - - -<p class="caption4"><i>The carpus</i></p> - -<p>is more reptile-like. It consists of two rows of small bones. In -birds there is one row made up of two bones.</p> - - -<p class="caption4"><i>The pteroid bone.</i></p> - -<p>Von Meyer regards it as having supported the wing-membrane -in flight. There has been a good deal of difference of opinion -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_21" id="Page_21">« 21 »</a></span> -about it, some thinking it, with Quenstedt, an ossified tendon; -others, like Wagner and Burmeister, regarding it as an essential -part of the Pterodactyle skeleton. Von Meyer regards its extent -as indicating the extent of the wing-membrane. See p. 42.</p> - - -<p class="caption4"><i>Metacarpus.</i></p> - -<p>In length the metacarpus resembles that of the Ruminants, -in which however it consists of but one bone; while in Pterodactyles -there is a separate bone for each of the four fingers; they -are closely united together without being blended. In some -Pterodactyles the metacarpals of the short fingers are as fine as -hairs, so that it is impossible that they should have articular -facets on the carpus. In Ornithopterus the metacarpus has some -resemblance with that of the bird, but the articulation with the -phalanges of the finger for flight is stiff. In Pterodactylus and -Rhamphorhynchus there is a free articulation.</p> - -<p>Burmeister remarks that the chief articulation of the wing in -bats is with the carpus, while in Pterodactyle the articulation is -with the end of the metacarpus.</p> - - -<p class="caption4"><i>The hand.</i></p> - -<p>Von Meyer finds four fingers. It was formerly supposed that -the order of the phalanges was 2, 3, 4, 4, but in the fly-finger this -is not the case, Ornithopterus having but two. The number of -joints in the other fingers is quite as irregular.</p> - -<p>In Pt. longicollum the thumb consists of but one joint.</p> - - -<p class="caption4"><i>The Ilium</i></p> - -<p>is more mammalian and avian than reptilian.</p> - - -<p class="caption4"><i>Pubis.</i></p> - -<p>The pubis appears to have been excluded from the glenoid -cavity, as in Crocodiles. It is more mammal-like than bird-like, -and is to be compared with the marsupial bones.</p> - - -<p class="caption4"><i>The femur.</i></p> - -<p>In certain Pterodactyles the proximal condyle of the femur -resembles birds; but in other Pterodactyles the bone is more -mammal-like in its straightness, and development of the upper -condyle, and in the presence of a trochanter.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_22" id="Page_22">« 22 »</a></span></p> - - -<p class="caption4"><i>The tibia and fibula</i></p> - -<p>may be compared, from their great length, with birds and flying -vertebrate animals.</p> - -<p>The fibula is style-shaped, like that of a bird, the lower part -being wanting; while in bats the upper part is wanting.</p> - - -<p class="caption4"><i>The tarsus,</i></p> - -<p>of two rows, is best compared with that of reptiles. The number -of constituent bones has not been definitely determined.</p> - -<p class="caption4"><i>The metatarsus</i></p> - -<p>shows a certain return from the bird type to that of reptiles.</p> - - -<p class="caption4"><i>Foot.</i></p> - -<p>Von Meyer never finds more than four toes, and sometimes a -stump of a fifth. As a whole, the foot is Saurian-like. It differs -from lizards in the number of toes, and approximates to Crocodiles. -In Pterodactylus longirostris the formula of the toes is 2, 3, 4, 5, -with a stump of two joints;—like lizards, if we abstract the outer -toe; and like birds with four toes; but they are liable to variations.</p> - -<p>In Pterodactylus scolopaciceps and P. Kochi the formula is -2, 3, 3, 4 joints. In Winkler's specimen of P. Kochi there is -also a stump of three joints.</p> - -<p>In Pterodactylus micronyx the formula is 2, 3, 3, 3, and a -stump of two joints. In P. longicollum the number appears to -be different from all the foregoing.</p> - -<p>The stump was attached to the side of the outer toe. Wagner, -in P. Kochi, supposed it to be on the inner side, and so gave a -reverse arrangement to the toes. The stump may be compared -with that of some Chelonians, in which it is not furnished with -a claw.</p> - -<p>There is a difference from birds in the claws being much less -developed. It has a true reptile foot. In bats the toes are of -equal length. Von Meyer thinks the hind-legs did not enable it -to walk on the land.</p> - -<p>In some Pterodactyles the flying-membrane is faintly seen. -The presence of feathers might be inferred from there being but -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_23" id="Page_23">« 23 »</a></span> -one finger for flighty as in birds; but the function of feathers is -subserved by the long and stiff finger. If it had been covered -with scales, as was supposed by Cuvier, some traces of them would -be found. The skin was probably naked, and had no connection -with the hind-legs as it has in bats; in this respect resembling -birds.</p> - -<p>The condition of the several parts of the skeleton completely -proves that the Pterodactyle was a reptile. Its head, neck, -shoulder, and back, resemble a bird; while there are, on the other -hand, some striking resemblances with the reptile in the pelvis, -tail, and articular parts of the limbs. Sometimes the characters of -the two classes run side by side, as in the skull, the fore-limbs, -and especially in the hind-limbs, where the shin of a Bird is connected -with the foot of a Saurian. The parts in which it corresponds -with birds show that Pterodactyles also were flying animals. -That we should be entitled to conclude, from the hollow state of -the bones, that they belonged to flying animals, is sufficiently -proved by Blumenbach, Buckland, Mantell, Owen having mistaken -them for bones of birds.</p> - -<p>The most absolute proof that it was a flying animal is the -pneumatic character of its bones. This condition was discerned -by me in some Pterodactyle bones from the Lias of Franken -(<i>Jahrb. für Mineral</i>, 1837, p. 316), and was afterwards established -by Owen in the Pterodactyles from the Chalk of England. -This structure was previously only known in birds. And the supposition -readily follows that in the respiratory process there was -some similarity between the Pterodactyle and the Birds. They -have the proportions of upper-arm and fore-arm which characterize -birds of great flight, the humerus short and the fore-arm long; -hence it may be presumed that Pterodactyles could fly well. From -the absence and presence of the bony sclerotic ring in the eye, it -may be supposed that the Pterodactyles were active in the day-time, -while Rhamphorhynchus was nocturnal.</p> - -<p>After this statement von Meyer gives a discursive summary, -in which his views of the classification of reptiles in general and -of Pterodactyles in particular are epitomized. And then goes -on to combat the views of people who have departed from his -classification and attempted to set up classifications of their own; -and cites a number of authors who, labouring at the vertebrata, -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_24" id="Page_24">« 24 »</a></span> -have endeavoured to find a resting-place in their systems for the -Pterodactyle. But the chief thing we learn of von Meyer's own -views is, that in 1830 he published a classification of extinct Saurians, -dividing them into those with limbs like the larger and -heavier land-mammals, those with fin-like limbs, and those with a -flying-finger. Which divisions have been widely adopted, though -authors have sometimes given them other names than those by -which they were first made known.</p> - -<p>Von Meyer has freely stated the facts about the Pterodactyle, -and draws the conclusion that the animal was a reptile; but -how such a conclusion was obtained from such facts is a matter on -which his pages are silent. One seems to hear the chirrup of the -bird in almost every paragraph. The head is in the main a bird's -head; the pectoral girdle and the sternal ribs are those of a bird; -and very few are the structures in which some reminder of the bird -is not present; and in their bones he discovered the pneumatic -characteristic and inferred, for the animals bird-like lungs. How, -then, comes it that the Pterodactyle is a reptile? We can only suppose -the answer to be, Because if the head and pectoral girdle -and other bones had been reptilian it would have been a bird.</p> - -<p class="tb_stars">* * * * *</p> - -<p>In the views here epitomized it is difficult always to make out -the logical foundations of the conclusions arrived at. Sometimes -they have no foundations, 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 -animals. In now stating my own views I shall avail myself of -the example of some previous writers, and attempt to investigate -the Pterodactyle as though they had not written. And then, -having placed before him all the theories that are known, the -reader will be able to choose the theory that pleases him best, -if indeed he needs one.</p> - -<p>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 classification. In palæontology, where -the types are more generalized than are living forms, it must -always be difficult to reason from the known to the unknown. -The known is always more or less incomparable with the unknown; -and there can be no reason for inferring that the specialities of -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_25" id="Page_25">« 25 »</a></span> -structure which now accompany specialities in organization would -justify us in inferring for the animal, in which the structures -formerly were united, the combined organizations of the living -animals in which they are now found. 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 belongs, and are entirely to be attributed to -the function which the necessities or organization of the animal -caused its structures to subserve. Inductive thought may sometimes -discover function from structure, but never makes more than -an approximate guess when it endeavours to determine fundamental -organization from osseous structures which are not fundamental. -And before a naturalist can say, since an animal has for instance a -tail like a mammal that in so far it must be affiliated to the mammalia, -he must have determined why the mammalian tail has its -peculiar characters, and whether it is compatible with any other -common plan of organization. And perhaps it might with equal -reason be considered reptilian.</p> - -<p>Therefore I prefer at firsts instead of reasoning from the details -of structure, to adopt the <i>à priori</i> method, and ask, not what the -Pterodactyle is like in its several bones, but what common plan it -had whereon its hard structures were necessarily moulded. For I -imagine, if it can be determined what the nervous and respiratory -and circulatory structures of the Pterodactyle were, it becomes a -secondary matter to know whether the phalanges are like a lizard's, -or the pelvis like that of a mammal. If the animal is asserted to -be a mammal, a reptile, or a bird, we ought to be able to adduce -evidence that it had the soft parts which are deemed distinctive -of the selected class. This no one has done or attempted to do.</p> - -<p>Hereafter it will be necessary to describe the Pterodactyle's -brain.</p> - -<p>There is no organ more distinctive between hot-blooded animals -on the one hand, and cold-blooded animals on the other, -than the brain. In the cold-blooded groups, or those in which -respiration is feeble and circulation imperfect, that is to say, in -existing fishes, amphibians, and reptiles, the parts of the brain are -arranged one behind another, so that when looked upon from -above, a portion called the optic lobes intervenes between the -anterior masses called the cerebrum and the posterior mass called -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_26" id="Page_26">« 26 »</a></span> -the cerebellum. In the hot-blooded groups, or those with an -enormous extent of lung-surface for oxidation of the blood and a -four-celled heart for its rapid circulation, that is to say, in birds -and mammals, the front part of the brain called the cerebrum is -immensely developed in proportion to the other parts, and abuts -against the cerebellum and more or less completely covers the -optic lobes, which in birds are squeezed out to the sides. The Pterodactyle -brain is of this latter kind. And it being taken as a -postulate that this kind of brain is the product of the organization -which produces hot blood, it follows that the Pterodactyle was -a hot-blooded animal.</p> - -<p>Again, the Pterodactyle has perforations for pneumatic cells -in many of the bones.</p> - -<p>There is no structure in the animal kingdom more distinctive -of a Class of animals than air-cells perforating the limb-bones. -They are connected with a peculiar kind of lung and heart—those -of the bird; for in this Class the bronchial tubes open on the outer -surface of the lungs into air-cells, which are prolonged through the -body into the bones. They follow the blood-vessels, and are most -developed in the part of the body most used. In some lizards, as -the Chameleon, the sack-like lung at its distal termination is as -simple as the air-cells of a bird; but those air-cells are not comparable -with the bird's air-cells, since they are not prolongations -of the bronchial tubes through the walls of the lungs. And it -cannot be inferred that a reptile with wings would develop air-cells -like those of a bird: in the first place, because those mammals -which have wings do not develop air-cells; and, in the second -place, because there is nothing in existing nature to lead any one -to think that reptiles might have wings. The mammalian lung -is better comparable to that of a bird than is the Chameleon lung, -and therefore the air-cell structure might with better reason have -been anticipated to occur in the Chiroptera than in a Lizard-ally, -if it were dependent on the development of wings. Moreover, -among Struthious birds the legs have more of the air-cell prolongations -than the wings. Therefore, being a peculiar Avian structure -which only exists in association with the Avian heart and -lung, it follows that because the Pterodactyle had the pneumatic -foramina it also had the structures of which they are the evidence, -viz. lung and heart formed on the bird plan.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_27" id="Page_27">« 27 »</a></span></p> - -<p>Thus Pterodactyles have a nervous system of the bird type. -That kind of brain only exists in association with a four-celled -heart and hot blood.</p> - -<p>They have a respiratory organization which is only met with -among birds.</p> - -<p>With that respiratory apparatus is always associated a four-celled -heart and hot blood, which it would necessarily -produce.</p> - -<p>And with that respiratory organization is always associated a -brain of the type that the Pterodactyle is found to possess.</p> - -<p><i>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 birds.</i></p> - -<p>This proposition will be incidentally proved in the following -memoir, in which it will be seen that with such a common plan, -is associated a diversity of details sufficient to demonstrate that -these animals are not birds, but constitute a new group of vertebrata -of equal value with the birds—the sub-class, Ornithosauria.</p> - -<hr class="chap" /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_28" id="Page_28">« 28 »</a></span></p> - - - - -<h2><a name="OSTEOLOGICAL_COLLECTION" id="OSTEOLOGICAL_COLLECTION">OSTEOLOGICAL COLLECTION</a></h2> - - -<p class="center">ILLUSTRATIVE OF THE MODIFICATIONS OF THE</p> - -<p class="caption3">ORNITHOSAURIA (OR PTERODACTYLES) IN THE<br /> -CAMBRIDGE UPPER GREENSAND.</p> - -<div class="fig_left"> -<table summary="location"> -<tr> - <td class="smaller">Case.</td> - <td class="smaller">Comp.</td> - <td class="smaller">Tablet.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="smaller"><b>J</b></td> - <td class="smaller"><i>a</i></td> - <td class="smaller">1</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td colspan="3"> </td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td colspan="3"> </td> -</tr> -</table> -</div> - -<div class="div_center" style="padding: 0.25em 0;"> -<span class="smcap">Pectoral Girdle.</span><br /> -<br /> -STERNUM.<br /> -<br /> -<a href="#p_i">Pl. 1, fig. 1.</a> -</div> - - -<p>The Sternum is the key to the bony apparatus supporting the -anterior limbs. In the Pterodactyles from the Cambridge Greensand -it has been well figured and described by Professor Owen, -who enunciated its resemblance to the sternum of birds. The -sternum in Pterodactyles from the Lithographic Slate, shows its -proportional size to the body. The examples found in the Cambridge -Greensand have as yet shown no evidence of a composite -character like that attributed to Rhamphorhynchus Gemmingi.</p> - -<p>The sternum consists of an expanded symmetrical shield -having its lateral halves, which are inclined to each other at a -large angle (about 150°), contracted superiorly, behind and immediately -below the synovial cavities for the coracoids. The -vertical angular ridge in which the lateral portions of the sternum -unite becomes elevated as it is followed anteriorly, into a strong -keel. This keel or interpectoral process is highest in front of -the articulations for the coracoids; but the degree of elevation -varies with the species. It is prolonged upward and in front of -the coracoids for some distance, becoming very massive, and the -prolonged mass which is flattened from side to side, reaches -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_29" id="Page_29">« 29 »</a></span> -laterally to the outer margins of the coracoid articulations, and -on the visceral side a little between and over them. The anterior -crest of the keel shows the attachment of powerful muscles.</p> - -<p>Professor Owen has observed that only in birds are distinct -synovial cavities provided for the coracoids, and that no reptile -has a sternum showing characters like those seen in the Pterodactyle. -These coracoid cavities are placed as in birds, close -together, behind the <i>manubrium</i>, which forms the hindermost part -of the keel. They are convex transversely, concave from front to -back as in birds, and look upward at an angle of 35°, their main -direction being outward and a little backward. Professor Owen -recognises the function of the shield-shaped sternum in relation to -the mechanism of respiration on the one hand, and on the other -hand, for the attachment of pectoral muscles of great bulk and -strength.</p> - -<p>As is well known, the muscles of the breast in most birds -consist chiefly of the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd pectoral muscles, and the -coraco-brachialis.</p> - -<p>The peculiar form of the bird's sternum appears to be due to -the vertical development of the second pectoral muscle, since -when the 1st and 3rd muscles are dissected off, the appearance -presented nearly resembles that of the sternum in Pterodactyles. -There can however be no doubt but that the third pectoral muscle, -which in most birds is but feebly developed, attained a far -greater bulk in the Pterodactyle, because there is evidence of its -powerful insertion in the distal anterior face of the coracoid, 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 attached. -The peculiar lateral emargination of the sternum appears to be -due to the anterior sternal termination of this muscle, caused -by the outward direction of the coracoid bone.</p> - -<p>Since the coracoids were developed outward and backward so -much more than in birds, it would happen, from the apparent -different direction of the second pectoral muscle, that the first -pectoral muscle which in birds skirts the furculum, must have -passed over the coracoid, probably pulling on its inside in opposition -to the third pectoral. Either a subdivision of this muscle or a -distinct muscle in the same place, in function corresponding to the -subclavius muscle, appears to have been powerfully attached from -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_30" id="Page_30">« 30 »</a></span> -the anterior prolongation of the keel of the sternum to the front -face of the coracoid. It is improbable that the second pectoral -muscle was undeveloped, but merely directed differently to what -it is in birds, since, as will be seen, there is a process at the -proximal end of the coracoid homologous with that which forms -the pulley round which this muscle in birds works.</p> - -<p>Professor Owen concludes his remarks by observing that the -Pterosaurian breast-bone is in the main formed on the ornithic -type. The muscles also appear to be similar to those of birds.</p> - -<p>All the specimens are much mutilated, but all show the distinctive -post-coracoid lateral emarginations, 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-class.</p> - -<p>The example figured in this memoir and by Professor Owen is -2<sup>5</sup>/<sub>8</sub> inches in antero-posterior measurement, probably about one -third its entire length.</p> - -<p>A small example in the collection of Mr Reed of York extends -1<sup>1</sup>/<sub>4</sub> inch in the same measurement, and by the analogy of <i>P. -suevicus</i> was more than twice that length when perfect. It is -remarkable in that the coracoid facets look much less outward -and much more backward than in the larger species.</p> - -<p>The mammalian sternum is usually in many consecutive pieces -like the vertebral column. The types in which it attains any size -as an expanded shield are Cetaceans and the Manatee, but in these -groups it has no keel and is not connected with the other bones of -the pectoral girdle. The proximal portion of the sternum of the -Mole is elongated and bird-like, with the shield narrower than in -the typical gallinaceous birds, and with the keel similarly developed. -It is connected with the humerus by small sub-quadrate -bones named clavicles placed at the sides of the proximal end. -The sternum in Bats usually consists of a proximal and a distal -part. It is narrow except at the proximal-termination where it -widens like the letter T or Y; and to the sides of the lateral -prolongations are attached the long, slender, curved bones named -clavicles, and a pair of ribs. This sternum develops a bird-like -keel. Both Mole and Bat are regarded as differing from Pterodactyles -in the bone giving attachment to the clavicles instead -of to the coracoids. The proximal part of the sternum in both -the living animals, gives attachment to but one pair of sternal -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_31" id="Page_31">« 31 »</a></span> -ribs. The Pterodactyle sternum otherwise differs from the Bats -in having the articulations for the coracoids close together, of a -peculiar concavo-convex character, with a massive portion or keel -prolonged forward in front of the coracoid articulations. The Bat -cannot be said to resemble the Pterodactyle closely. The sternum -of the Mole differs from that of the Pterodactyle in having a less -developed shield, and in having a more developed keel which is not -prolonged in front of the coracoid articulations. These examples -demonstrate that resemblance in conformation is functional, and -no proof of affinity.</p> - -<p>Pterodactyles make some approach in the proportions of their -sternum to Struthious birds. But the Struthionidæ have the bone -thick, do not develop a keel, nor, have they an inter-coracoid process -while the coracoid articulations are singularly long and narrow -instead of being ovate. With other birds the Pterodactyle sternum -agrees in giving attachment to the coracoid bones by synovial -articulations, in the bone being shield-shaped, and supporting a more -or less developed keel. The keel is chiefly developed at the proximal -end, as in the Albatross, which has the bone broad; and it is -prolonged in front of the coracoids exactly as in <i>Mergus merganser</i>, -which sternum if a little broader in the shield and thicker in the -keel would very nearly reproduce the sternum of the Pterodactyle, -even to the "post-coracoid lateral emargination" of Cambridge -specimens. Among reptiles the only form which suggests comparison -is the Chameleon, in which however the sternum consists of an -anterior and a posterior part as in the Bats, the back part narrow, -and the front part a long lozenge shape, with a keel made by inclination -of the sides of the bone to each other as in the Dodo, but -the keel such as it is, is at the back part of the bone, and there is -no prolongation in front of the coracoids as in Pterodactyle. The -coracoids are broad, and are applied to the two anterior sides -of the lozenge. The Crocodile has a narrow flat sternum which is -prolonged anteriorly between the coracoids.</p> - -<p>The resemblance is greater with mammals than with reptiles. -From birds the Pterodactyle sternum makes no essential difference, -and in the Merganser finds a close ally.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_32" id="Page_32">« 32 »</a></span></p> - - -<div class="fig_left"> -<table summary="location"> -<tr> - <td class="smaller">Case.</td> - <td class="smaller">Comp.</td> - <td class="smaller">Tablet.</td> - <td class="smaller">Specimen.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="smaller"><b>J</b></td> - <td class="smaller"><i>a</i></td> - <td class="smaller">2</td> - <td class="smaller">1—23</td> -</tr> -</table> -</div> - -<div class="div_center"> -CORACOID.<br /> -<br /> -<a href="#p_ii">Pl. 2, fig. 1-6.</a> -</div> - -<p>Commonly the coracoid in the Cambridge Pterodactyles is -anchylosed to the scapula: occasionally the bones are separate, -though the separation has hitherto only been observed in the -largest species. In 1851 Professor Owen, when figuring the -anchylosed ends of the scapula and coracoid in Pterodactylus giganteus -(Bowerbank), observed that in no part of the skeleton does the -Pterodactyle more nearly resemble a bird than in the scapular arch; -a view again urged emphatically in 1859 when similar fragments -were described from the Cambridge Greensand. Since then perfect -examples of the coracoid have occurred, which show the characters -given in the following description.</p> - -<p>The bone is long, with sub-parallel sides, sub-triangnlar in -section, with the proximal end expanded exteriorly and posteriorly, -resembling in form the coracoid of a bird. The front surface looks -forward and outward; it is flattened, is a little convex transversely, -and a little convex in length; it is rugose with muscular attachments, -which terminate in a tubercle on the uppermost fourth of -the front, usually near to the inner side. The middle third of the -slightly concave inside margin of the front aspect, is sharply angular; -the parts above and below it have the angularity rounded -off. The outside margin, a little more concave than the inside -margin, is sharply angular in its distal third, in which the front -gradually widens to near the sternal articulation, when it contracts—the -whole sternal termination of the bone being directed a little -inward towards the manubrium of the sternum. The inside, which -faces the opposite coracoid, is convex transversely in the lower -half or two-thirds; its distal termination is carried inward. The -expanded proximal end of the inside is flattened, or channelled, by -the developement inwardly, at the proximal end of the ridge -formed with the front side, of a long strong process homologous -with that on the inner side of the coracoid in birds. The channel so -formed rounds on to the proximal surface of the bone, and extends -backward to the limit of the scapula; over it the second pectoral -muscle may be presumed to have worked<a name="FNanchor_14" id="FNanchor_14"></a><a href="#Footnote_14" class="fnanchor">[N]</a>. The third side of the -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_33" id="Page_33">« 33 »</a></span> -bone is much more concave in length than either of the others; it -looks backward, outward, and downward, the proximal end being -turned outward and downward more than the distal end; it is a little -concave transversely at the expanded proximal end. Near the distal -end there are sometimes visible a few faint marks of the insertion -of muscular fibres, but they are much less distinct than those -made by the coraco-brachialis muscle in the corresponding region -of the coracoid in birds. Throughout its length it rounds into -the inner side, and the upper third rounds convexly into the front. -On the most posterior part of this aspect of the proximal end is a -groove terminating in a long pneumatic foramen, partly in the -coracoid, partly in the scapula.</p> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_14" id="Footnote_14"></a><a href="#FNanchor_14"><span class="label">[N]</span></a> The homologous process is more developed in Pterodactylus giganteus. -See f. 7. pl. <span class="smcap">XXXI.</span> Owen, Cret. Rept.</p></div> - -<p>The muscular attachments on the front aspect of the coracoid -appear to be two; one large and long inserted into the inner half -of the middle third of the bone, terminating at the proximal end -in a tubercle. No specimen shows the distal end of the insertion. -This may indicate a subdivision of the first pectoral muscle. The -other insertion, if it be distinct, is long and much narrower and at -the distal end of the bone. This, according to the analogy of birds, -should be the third pectoral muscle; if the insertion should be but -part of that to which it is distally adjacent, then the third pectoral -muscle must have had an enormous developement unparalleled -in birds.</p> - -<p>The distal end of the bone terminates in a synovial articulation -concave transversely, convex from front to back, in form transversely -ovate: the narrow side of the articulation, like the thin edge -of the coracoid, being exterior. The articulation is about three -fourths of the transverse diameter of the distal end; it is at right -angles with the long axis of the bone, and looks downward and -a little backward.</p> - -<p>The proximal end, massively enlarged outward and backward, -presents on the proximal surface three well defined regions. The -largest of these is an irregular flattened surface half ovate in form, -inclined to the axis of the bone at about 45°, looking backward, -and upward also, when the bone is held vertically; the mesial -hindermost half of the radius of this area is occupied by a pneumatic -cavity: to this surface is applied the scapula. The next -largest surface is rectangular and oblong, looking upward, outward, -and a little forward. The transverse aspect which looks outward -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_34" id="Page_34">« 34 »</a></span> -being nearly half as long again as the antero-posterior aspect which -looks forward; in the latter direction the area is slightly concave, -in the former direction it is slightly convex; its posterior boundary -is parallel with the front of the bone: this area forms the anterior -moiety of the glenoid cavity, to which the proximal end of the -humerus is applied.</p> - -<p>The remaining surface of the proximal end is sub-quadrate, -adjoins the two other surfaces as well as the front and the inside -of the shaft, it is conically concave.</p> - -<p>The entire bone when applied to the sternum looked outward, -backward and upward.</p> - -<p>Professor Owen remarked (1859) that the "coracoid is shorter -and straighter in birds than in Pterodactyles, but is commonly -broader, and with a longer and stronger anterior process."</p> - -<p>The points in which the Pterodactyle coracoid resembles that -of birds (e. g. Gallinaceæ) are the long slender triangular shaft; the -concavo-convex articulation to the sternum; the convexity of the -distal end in front, and its concavity behind; the posterior aspect -of its scapular surface, and the pneumatic foramen.</p> - -<p>The points in which it is distinct from birds are that the bone -is not produced proximally beyond the glenoid cavity for the humerus, -which, instead of being lateral as in birds, and looking outward, -in Pterodactyles forms the proximal-termination of the bone. -The sternal articulation is proportionally much shorter transversely -in Pterodactyles, terminating in a convex margin which rounds up -into the thin outer margin, as in the immature coracoid of the common -Cock. It is bow-shaped in front instead of being straight, and -is commonly longer than in birds. The usual ossified connection -with the scapula is not entirely unparalleled in birds, the whole -pectoral girdle being sometimes anchylosed into a bony mass as in -the frigate bird.</p> - -<p>In the monotremata, the only mammals in which the coracoids -are separate bones, they rather recall those of Ichthyosaurus than -those of any other animals, and have no connection with the -sternum. The bone which represents it functionally in placental -mammals is the clavicle.</p> - -<p>In no reptile is there any structure resembling the Ornithosaurian -coracoid. The nearest approximation is made by the -Crocodile, in which as in the Chameleon the pectoral girdle is -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_35" id="Page_35">« 35 »</a></span> -formed as in pterodactyles and struthious birds by scapula, coracoid -and sternum. But in the Crocodile the coracoid is compressed, -and expanded from side to side both proximally and distally. -Distally it has no synovial articulation with the sternum; and -proximally a wide process of the bone extends beyond the articulation -for the humerus as in birds, only the scapula unites with -the prolonged part, and the glenoid cavity looks forward and inward.</p> - -<p>The coracoid is essentially avian in its affinities, though with -peculiar characters of its own. In the German genera it closely -resembles specimens from the Cambridge Greensand.</p> - -<p>23 specimens are exhibited. Nos. 4, 10, 12, are the middle parts -of shafts of left coracoids. Nos. 3-12, 22, are the middle parts of -shafts of right coracoids. Nos. 2, 5, 14, are proximal ends of left -coracoids. Nos. 1, 6, 8, 9, 23, are proximal ends of right coracoids. -Nos. 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, are distal ends of left coracoids. -No. 13 is a nearly perfect left coracoid, and No. 7 is the glenoid -cavity for the humerus formed by a right coracoid with the -anchylosed scapula.</p> - - -<div class="fig_left"> -<table summary="location"> -<tr> - <td class="smaller">Case.</td> - <td class="smaller">Comp.</td> - <td class="smaller">Tablet.</td> - <td class="smaller">Specimen.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="smaller"><b>J</b></td> - <td class="smaller"><i>a</i></td> - <td class="smaller">3</td> - <td class="smaller">1—17</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td></td> - <td></td> - <td class="smaller">4</td> - <td class="smaller">1— 6</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td></td> - <td></td> - <td class="smaller">5</td> - <td class="smaller">1— 4</td> -</tr> -</table> -</div> - -<div class="div_center"> -SCAPULA.<br /> -<br /> -<a href="#p_i">Pl. 1, figs. 2-12.</a> -</div> - -<p>Professor Owen described the scapula of Pterodactylus giganteus -in 1851, and added further particulars regarding the Species from -the Cambridge Greensand, in 1859; but, as with the coracoid, only -the humeral end has hitherto been figured. The only example -sufficiently perfect to give the length and proportions of the bone -is preserved in the collection of Mr Reed, of York. This left scapula -is a stout strong bone, short in proportion to its strength, of -flattened ovate form in section, expanding at the humeral end into -an irregular sub-rhomboid mass. It is smaller in the middle, contracting -both from side to side and from back to front till the back -to front measurement is <sup>7</sup>/<sub>16</sub> of an inch, and the side to side measurement -is <sup>11</sup>/<sub>16</sub> of an inch, and it expands a little at the free end, -which terminates in a smooth heart-shaped surface, convex in the -long diameter, which measures <sup>7</sup>/<sub>8</sub> of an inch, and flat in the short -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_36" id="Page_36">« 36 »</a></span> -one, which measures nearly <sup>5</sup>/<sub>8</sub> of an inch; it is at right angles with -the inside of the bone. The sharp superior lateral outline is concave, -but less so than the inferior lateral outline; into that inferior -aspect of the bone the sides are more fully rounded. The flattened -inner surface applied to the ribs is concave in the length of the -bone, which measures 3<sup>1</sup>/<sub>2</sub> inches; the posterior half of which is convex -transversely, the anterior humeral half is concave transversely -so as to be cup-shaped, and measures in extreme width 1<sup>11</sup>/<sub>16</sub> inch; -the outline of the transversely convex outer side in length is nearly -straight, but the exterior part and glenoid cavity of the proximal -end is broken away, and there only remains a small median proximal -surface broken at both ends, a little concave in length, measuring -<sup>5</sup>/<sub>8</sub> of an inch, and convex in breadth measuring <sup>1</sup>/<sub>4</sub> of an inch.</p> - -<p>As there is no specimen in the Woodwardian Museum showing -clearly the connection of the proximal with the distal end, the -specimens are arranged on separate tablets.</p> - - -<p><span class="smcap">Humeral End of Scapula.</span></p> - -<p>The humeral end of the scapula exhibits in the different -species much diversity of form, spreading laterally from the shaft, -and terminating in an elongated articular surface truncating the -bone nearly at right angles. On its inferior border it throws out a -large convex tuberosity, separated from the humeral articular -surface by a deep emargination. From the tuberosity usually -arises a crescentic row of muscular insertions, which is continued -inward and forward over the most compressed part of the scapula -towards the middle of the humeral articulation. From the superior -margin, interior to the coracoid, arises a prominent ridge, -the spine of the scapula, which is directed diagonally backward -and downward, terminating in the middle of the outer surface, -where it is bordered on the anterior aspect by a long narrow muscular -attachment. Between this spine and the elevated margin -of the glenoid cavity the bone is much compressed and concave.</p> - -<p>On the inside surface of the bone there appear to be small -muscular attachments in front of and behind the great tuberosity. -The area between the spine and the inner surface is sometimes -flattened, sometimes gently convex.</p> - -<p>With well-marked distinctive characters in the inferior tuberosity, -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_37" id="Page_37">« 37 »</a></span> -the pre-tuberous emargination and the thick rounded form -of the bone, the Pterodactyle scapula is intermediate in character -between that of a mole, a bird, and the crocodile; wanting the -sabre shape of the bird's scapula, it also wants the wide expanded -form of the scapula of the Crocodile, but resembles the latter in -the direction and degree of developement of the spine. This -modification is probably due to the outward direction and clavicular -function of the coracoid, as well as to the raptorial habit of -the organism.</p> - -<p>In no living Reptile is there a scapula to be compared with -that of the Pterodactyle, for besides the free end being expanded, -in the crocodile, it is also thin and squamous and the bone makes -a continuous curve with the coracoid as in struthious birds, and -not a sharp angle as in Pterodactyles. The "spine" in crocodiles -is on the anterior border of the bone and directed upward and -backward, while in Pterodactyles it is on the posterior border and -directed upward and forward. In the Chameleon the scapula is -more elongated and narrow, narrower in proportion to its length -than in Pterodactyle, but becomes rapidly wide at its union with -the coracoid. It is curved in length so as to fit on to convex ribs. -A scapula presenting some resemblance to Pterodactyle is found -in certain Liassic Ichthyosaurs.</p> - -<p>Among mammals a straight elongated narrow scapula is rare. -The mole however has a scapula of this kind somewhat cylindrical -in its proximal half and not much expanded at the free end, on -which there is a small spine. The anterior emargination above -the glenoid cavity in Pterodactyle is entirely mammalian, as is -the anterior tuberosity above the emargination, for it entirely corresponds -with what in ruminants, pachyderms and many mammals -would be named the coracoid process. If that process is accurately -determined it is difficult to say what this is.</p> - -<p>In birds there is often a prolonged process on the inner side of -the coracoid, which however extends interior to other parts of the -scapula, and to this the furculum is attached. Such traces of a -spine as are to be detected in the swan conform to the Pterodactyle.</p> - - -<p>No bird has the scapula cylindrical, even struthious birds only -making an approximation to such a condition; and no birds have -the scapula so straight. The bone is more avian and mammalian -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_38" id="Page_38">« 38 »</a></span> -than reptilian; and more avian than mammalian but with strong -distinctive characters of its own.</p> - -<p>17 specimens of the humeral ends of scapulæ are exhibited. -Nos. 1, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14, 15, 17 are left scapulæ. Nos. 2, 3, -5, 10, 12, 16 are right scapulæ.</p> - -<p>The tablet of the distal ends of scapulæ comprises 6 specimens.</p> - - -<div class="fig_left"> -<table summary="location"> -<tr> - <td class="smaller">Case.</td> - <td class="smaller">Comp.</td> - <td class="smaller">Tablet.</td> - <td class="smaller">Specimen.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="smaller"><b>J</b></td> - <td class="smaller"><i>a</i></td> - <td class="smaller">6</td> - <td class="smaller">1—46</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td></td> - <td></td> - <td class="smaller">7</td> - <td class="smaller">1— 3</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td></td> - <td></td> - <td class="smaller">8</td> - <td class="smaller">1</td> -</tr> -</table> -</div> - -<div class="div_center"> -<span class="smcap">Fore-Limb.</span><br /> -<br /> -HUMERUS.<br /> -<br /> -<a href="#p_iv">Pl. 4.</a> -</div> - -<p>There are among the fossils of the Cambridge Greensand at -least two well-marked <i>types</i> of Pterodactyle humerus, readily -recognised by the forms of the proximal and of the distal ends, -and by the positions of the pneumatic foramina. In the group -having the ulnar ridge developed the pneumatic foramen is on the -posterior aspect of the bone<a name="FNanchor_15" id="FNanchor_15"></a><a href="#Footnote_15" class="fnanchor">[O]</a> under the ulnar ridge, as in birds; -but in some of the small Pterodactyles the foramen is on the -anterior surface, and on its radial side. This latter kind of humerus -has the distal end more or less divided into three convex surfaces, -while the radial crest is enormously developed and terminates in -a smooth oblong flattened surface nearly as large as the proximal -articular surface, and looking anteriorly. The distal articular surfaces -are not as in birds parallel to that of the proximal end, -though they agree with those of birds in being at right angles to -the radial crest; this ridge in Pterodactyles being directed much -further outward and backward than in birds.</p> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_15" id="Footnote_15"></a><a href="#FNanchor_15"><span class="label">[O]</span></a> Professor Owen states (p. 16, 3d Supt.) that the foramen is palmar. -Fig. 15. T. <span class="smcap">III.</span> 2d Supt. shows it to be anconal.</p></div> - -<p>The largest forms of Pterodactyle all have the distal articular -surface flatter, and the proximal articulation less bent back so as -to look more upwards. No specimen of this kind of humerus has -occurred with the radial crest preserved; but it is apparently -carried farther down the shaft and not so far forward as in the -other group. This latter kind of bone is shown by Prof. Owen -in T. <span class="smcap">III.</span> figs. 1, 2, 3rd Sup. Cret. Reptiles; the former kind has -been illustrated in figure 5 of the same plate.</p> - -<p>Some of the most gigantic Pterodactyles appear to have had -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_39" id="Page_39">« 39 »</a></span> -the limb-bones as solid as those of crocodiles, and unpermeated by -air; 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 rocks.</p> - -<p>The osteological series comprises 46 specimens. No. 30 is a -nearly perfect right humerus. Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 18, 22, -23, 25, 39 are examples of the proximal ends of left humeri. -Nos. 3, 4, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 24, 26, 27, 28, 38, 40, 41 -are examples of the proximal ends of right humeri. Nos. 20, 21, -32, 33, 34, 35, 37, 42, 44, 45, are examples of the distal ends of -left humeri. Nos. 29, 31, 36, 43 and 46 are distal ends of right -humeri.</p> - -<p>No. 30 shows the entire length of the humerus to be 2<sup>1</sup>/<sub>2</sub> inches. -It has a nearly circular shaft with a diameter of a little more than -a quarter of an inch, being more slender than the corresponding -bone of Pt. suevicus, which has the same length. The <i>proximal</i> -articular surface is crescentic, the anterior concavity corresponding -with the concave anterior aspect of the proximal end, while the -convex border corresponds to the convex posterior side of the bone, -which it overhangs: it is worn, but appears to measure half an inch -from the radial to the ulnar side. The ulnar ridge (which is worn) -has not extended more than a quarter of an inch beyond the -articular surface. The thin bird-like radial crest, arising rather -more distally than the ulnar ridge, is flat on its posterior surface, -and extends anteriorly for a distance nearly half as far again as -the length of the proximal articular surface of the humerus. On -the proximal third of the posterior face are two contiguous long -narrow oblique muscular insertions. The proximal ends Nos. 22, -23, 24, 25 are examples of this kind of bone, having the pneumatic -foramen radially situated on the anterior aspect near to the -articular surface, as may be seen in No. 24. No. 25 shows the termination -of the radial crest in an oblique oblong smooth surface, -slightly convex in length and breadth, directed distally towards -the ulnar side.</p> - -<p>No. 6, 7, 13, 27, are examples of another kind of proximal end, -where the pneumatic foramen is an oval hole on the ulnar side of -the posterior surface. The radial crest arises more distally, and -the ulnar ridge more proximally, than in the small species, like -No. 30.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_40" id="Page_40">« 40 »</a></span></p> - -<p>Nos. 4, 11, 14, 16 are examples of other species with the foramen -placed as in the last group, only less near to the proximal -end, while it enters obliquely, being directed distally from the -broad concave area proximal to it. The largest proximal ends -known, such as No. 2, which though very imperfect measures 2<sup>3</sup>/<sub>4</sub> -inches over what remains of the articular surface, appear to conform -to this latter type.</p> - -<p><i>Distally</i> the humerus No. 30 enlarges, widening rapidly on -the radial side, which is bordered near the distal end by a sharp -ridge showing a muscular attachment, while the ulnar side is -rounded and rather inflated. The articular surface looks downward -and in the direction of the radial process. There is a mesial -concavity on the radial side which is bordered on the right and on -the left by a prominent rounded condyle, and behind by a condyloid -convexity. On that side which in conformity with the -nomenclature applied to birds' bones, has here been named the -ulnar side, the ulnar and mesial condyles are impressed with a -flattened slightly concave sub-rhomboid area, which looks downward, -backward, and towards the ulnar side. These characters -are not well seen in No. 30, but may be effectively studied in their -specific variations in Nos. 36, 37, 42, 43, 44, 45, and 46.</p> - -<p>Nos. 20, 21, 29, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, are examples of the distal -ends of humeri of a different type. They are mostly larger than -the preceding group, and correspond in characters with the large -proximal ends, but appear to be separable into two groups, namely -those with a pneumatic foramen on the anterior radial side near -to the articular surface, and those where no pneumatic foramen is -seen. Unlike the previously considered type, the ulnar side is -sometimes more inflated than the radial side.</p> - -<p>The mesial condyle in this group appears in every case to be an -epiphysis, which is wanting. The radial condyle becomes a large -flattened slightly convex surface looking downwards, which in some -of the species, as Nos. 21 and 32 (in other respects remarkable -species), shows an approach to a trochlear character on its anterior -side. In Nos. 33, 34 and 35 the mesial anterior concavity becomes -flattened and abuts at an angle against the flattened radial condyle. -No. 20 shows the rhomboid impression on the ulnar side to be more -concave and more ovate. The ulnar condyle remains a smaller but -prominent tubercle directed distally. Nos. 21, 22 and 34 show a -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_41" id="Page_41">« 41 »</a></span> -ridge developed on the ulnar side of the shaft like that on the radial -side in the other group, while the radial ridge is not so near to the -articular surface. The largest and smallest distal ends of humeri -known, both show the characters here enumerated. The great -distal end of a left humerus, figured by Prof. Owen, Pl. <span class="smcap">IV.</span> f. 1, 2, -3 of the 1st Supplement to the Cretaceous Pterosauria, is of this -kind, and though imperfect measures more than three inches over -what remains of the articular surface. In the small humerus, -No. 30, the width over the distal articular surface is <sup>5</sup>/<sub>8</sub>ths of an inch. -If it is assumed that the large bone was no more than 5 times the -length of the small one, the entire length of the humerus would -have been about twelve inches. The smallest humerus, No. 29, -measures over the shaft rather more than one eighth of an inch.</p> - -<p>The Ornithosaurian humerus has but little in common with -that of any mammal. Most mammals have the proximal head of -the bone hemispherical, and a pit at the distal end for the olecranon -process of the ulna, while there is usually little indication of a radial -crest, and the proximal and distal ends are in the same plane. In -the Bat however the bone is twisted a little so that the slight radial -crest looks in the same direction as the distal end, here also there -is no pit for the olecranon; but the bone is sigmoid and proportionally -much longer than in Pterodactyles. In the horse, hippopotamus, -&c., the radial process becomes more developed but never -resembles that of a Pterodactyle.</p> - -<p>Among reptiles, the bone may be compared with lizards and -crocodiles. In crocodiles the proximal and distal ends are nearly -in the same plane, the distal end has two condyles, the head is -convex from side to side, and the radial crest is moderately -developed and never extends so far outward or so far proximally -as in Pterodactyle. In the Chameleon the bone is more twisted -than in Crocodile, and as in Pterodactyle the distal end is compressed -on the radial side to a sharp margin. In Iguana, Scink, -and Monitor both proximal and distal ends are much expanded, -and the radial process makes no approximation to that of a -Pterodactyle.</p> - -<p>The bird humerus does not approximate more closely in form -to that of the Pterodactyle than does the Chameleon humerus, -though it has the cardinal distinction of pneumatic foramina, and -these sometimes corresponding in position in the two groups.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_42" id="Page_42">« 42 »</a></span></p> - -<p>The bird humerus is commonly longer, though in the parrots -the proportions and straightness are not unlike Pterodactyle. In -some respects a nearer resemblance is seen in the raptorial bird -<i>Gypogeranus serpentarius</i>, in which the radial process is rather -more developed than in the Crocodile, and extends further proximally -though still much smaller than in Pterodactyle; here too the -superior surface is concave from side to side, and the distal articulation -is not unlike that of some Pterodactyles. But no Pterodactyle -has the head of the humerus convex from the radial to the -ulnar sides, and the bird is distinctive in having the ulnar crest -developed on the inferior side of the head: a faint approximation to -a similar development is seen in Crocodile, but there is no trace of -such a process in Pterodactyle. The distal end is more Bird-like -than Lacertian in form, but is twisted to a greater angle with the -proximal end than in birds.</p> - -<p>Altogether the bone is distinctive. The points in which it is -unlike birds and reptiles are those in which Birds and Lizards resemble -each other; it would not be easy to say that in form it resembles -one group more than the other. But it is linked with -birds by the pneumatic foramina.</p> - - -<div class="fig_left"> -<table summary="location"> -<tr> - <td class="smaller">Case.</td> - <td class="smaller">Comp.</td> - <td class="smaller">Tablet.</td> - <td class="smaller">Specimen.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="smaller"><b>J</b></td> - <td class="smaller"><i>a</i></td> - <td class="smaller">9</td> - <td class="smaller">5— 6</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td></td> - <td></td> - <td class="smaller">10</td> - <td class="smaller">1—10</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td></td> - <td></td> - <td class="smaller">11</td> - <td class="smaller">1— 7</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td></td> - <td></td> - <td class="smaller">12</td> - <td class="smaller">1— 4</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td></td> - <td></td> - <td class="smaller">13</td> - <td class="smaller">5— 6</td> -</tr> -</table> -</div> - -<div class="div_center" style="padding: 2.5em 0;"> -RADIUS AND ULNA. -</div> - -<p>Of neither of these bones has a perfect specimen been found. -While fragments of humeri are met with frequently, fragments -of these bones are rare. In accordance with the analogy with birds -the Ulna might be presumed to be the larger bone of the two. -But from a study of German specimens the larger bone is found to -be the Radius, which according to the mammalian plan is placed in -front of the ulna. As a whole, the fore-arm of Ornithosaurians is -only to be compared with the insectivorous mammal <i>Chrysochloris -Capensis</i>, in which there are also three bones in the fore-arm,—the -third bone like the <i>Pteroid bone</i> in Ornithosaurians, extending -about half-way from the carpus to the humerus, and holding, relatively, -a similar position and development to the fibula in bats.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_43" id="Page_43">« 43 »</a></span></p> - -<p>The pteroid bone articulated with a separate carpal, and was -placed on the side of the arm, adjacent to the radius, which at -the distal end extended in German specimens more inward than -the ulna. In Chrysochloris the third bone appears to be behind -the other bones, and adjacent to the ulna<a name="FNanchor_16" id="FNanchor_16"></a><a href="#Footnote_16" class="fnanchor">[P]</a>.</p> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_16" id="Footnote_16"></a><a href="#FNanchor_16"><span class="label">[P]</span></a> See D'Alton and Pander <i>Chiropteren und Insectivoren</i>, Bonn, 1831, pl. 5, -Chrysochloris.</p></div> - -<p>Among neither birds nor reptiles is any comparable modification -of the fore-arm to be found. Then by examining the proximal -surface of the proximal carpal, the characters of the distal end of -the Radius are readily discovered. The proximal carpal shows on -the same surface another articular facets with which however only -one fragmentary distal end of a bone corresponds. That accordingly -is identified as the ulna. Besides these, three other articular -ends of bones occur, one of which fits on to the distal end of the -femur. The remaining two are both large bones, with epiphyses -which formed portions of the articular surfaces, and are usually -wanting. One of these bones corresponds in form with the ulna of -a bird, and would fit the facet on the ulnar side of the distal end -of the Pterodactyle humerus. The other bone is massive with a -sub-quadrate articular end, and might well be the proximal end of -the radius. Some specimens are among the largest fragments of -Pterodactyle bone known. The only other bone that either of -these could be is the distal end of the tibia, a bone not yet known, -but probably not unlike that of a bird.</p> - - -<p class="center"><span class="smcap">I. Distal End of Ulna.</span></p> - -<p>Four specimens which show articular ends such as the ulna -should have, are mounted together. They are compressed bones -with the section of the fracture elongately oval; and the shaft -widens from the fracture to the articulation without increasing -in thickness. The outer surface is gently convex, becoming concave -mesially near the articulation; the inner surface has the -same characters, only the concavity at the extreme distal end -reaches from side to side of the bone. The two short sides both -look outward as well as laterally; one of them flattened so as to -thicken the bone, is concave in vertical outline owing to the extreme -distal end turning suddenly outward; the other side a little convex, -compresses the bone and inflects its inner margin. The longest -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_44" id="Page_44">« 44 »</a></span> -specimen measures 1<sup>5</sup>/<sub>8</sub> inch; <sup>5</sup>/<sub>8</sub> inch wide at the fracture, and -1<sup>1</sup>/<sub>8</sub> inch wide at the distal end. The greatest thickness at the -distal end is half an inch, the thickness of the fractured shaft -is <sup>5</sup>/<sub>8</sub> of an inch.</p> - -<p>The articular surface appears to have an elongated sub-reniform -shape, the part at the compressed side of the bone being -narrower than the broad ovate part on the thick side of the bone, -to the lateral limit of which it extends, while the narrow part -does not extend laterally nearly so far as the inflected border, -which appears to give attachment to powerful muscles. 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 ridge.</p> - -<p>In its long diameter the articulation is a little convex; transversely -it is very convex in the ovate part, but more flattened in -its narrower continuation. Where widest it measures about <sup>4</sup>/<sub>10</sub>ths -of an inch.</p> - -<p>Nos. 5 and 6 on another tablet appear to be distal ends -of ulna of another kind of Pterodactyle. They are less compressed, -more quadrate in section, and have the sides more nearly -parallel The flattened side similarly has a concave border, but -instead of having its distal termination developed laterally, has it -thickened behind. The opposite side of the bone which in the -other specimens was compressed is here thick and well rounded, -and not at all inflected. There is an absence of the concavity -noticed on the outer surface of the bone in the compressed specimens. -The articular surface is much flatter, and a little concave -in length instead of being convex; as in the other examples it -looks downward. The largest fragment. No. 5, measures 1<sup>3</sup>/<sub>8</sub> inch -long; it is <sup>6</sup>/<sub>8</sub> inch wide at the fracture, and <sup>4</sup>/<sub>8</sub> inch thick. The -sub-quadrate distal end is more than an inch long, more than -<sup>4</sup>/<sub>8</sub>ths inch thick on the thick side, and nearly <sup>4</sup>/<sub>8</sub>ths inch thick on the -compressed side.</p> - - -<p class="center"><span class="smcap">II. Distal End of Radius.</span></p> - -<p>The best preserved of the 10 specimens here exhibited is -3 inches long, No. 2. The shaft is oval, flattened on one side; -measuring at an inch from the fractured end <sup>7</sup>/<sub>10</sub>ths of an inch in -the least diameter, and one inch in the wide diameter. It widens -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_45" id="Page_45">« 45 »</a></span> -distally at first slowly, then rapidly, till at the articular end its -greatest width is two inches. But while expanding laterally it -contracts from side to side, the more convex side of the two at -about an inch from the articular end, beginning to approximate -to the flatter side till the articular end has a short diameter of -less than half an inch.</p> - -<p>On the left-hand corner of the convex inner side of the bone -is an elevated flattened disc for muscular attachments, fully half -an inch in diameter, there is a slight muscular attachment interior -to this, nearer the middle of the bone. 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 attachment. Parallel to this nearer the middle of the -side is a much stronger and acutely elevated ridge.</p> - -<p>The articulation is made up of three distinct parts, all in a -straight line. The portion of bone adjacent to the large muscular -disc is compressed and rounded on the distal end; then first there is -a rather deep circular cup <sup>3</sup>/<sub>8</sub>ths of an inch wide, nearer to the more -convex than to the flatter side of the bone; adjacent to this cup is -a convex ball of about the same size; while the remainder of the -articulation is concave in length, convex from side to side, and -looks downward and a little towards the inner convex side of the -bone. The specimens are arranged so as to display these characters.—The -example described is of nearly the same size as that -figured for the humerus in fig. 1, T. <span class="smcap">XXIV.</span> of the Cretaceous Reptilia. -The less well preserved bone in that figure exhibits the -Ulna in its true position behind the Radius.</p> - - -<p class="center"><span class="smcap">III. Proximal End of Ulna.</span></p> - -<p>This bone has much the proportions of the Ulna in birds, the -smaller specimens nearly resembling the ulna of the Heron. The -specimen (No. 1) with the shaft best preserved is 2<sup>1</sup>/<sub>4</sub> inches long, -cylindrical at the fracture, where it measures in diameter <sup>3</sup>/<sub>16</sub>ths of -an inch. It gradually enlarges proximally widening to about <sup>7</sup>/<sub>10</sub>ths -of an inch; near the proximal end it is a little curved, the side -which is concave in length being a little flattened, while there is -a lateral elevation on the opposite side, apparently corresponding to -the quill-ridge on the convex side of the bird-ulna. There is a -separate ossification for the olecranon, which is an irregular sub-oblong -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_46" id="Page_46">« 46 »</a></span> -bone forming the outer part of the articulation; it is only -preserved in No. 1. Nos. 4, 5 and 6 show the concave transverse -groove from which it has come away.</p> - -<p>The articular surface looks upward and forward, in which -aspect it has a trapezoidal form. Sometimes, as in No. 2, the -great sigmoid area is divided into two parts by a vertical ridge, the -more elevated part of the articulation on the radial side of the -bone being concave, while the outer part, as in the heron, besides -being concave, has its border on the concave side of the bone produced -and rounded. 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 heron. On this aspect the bone is flattened, -on the opposite and outward aspect it is compressed and -produced as in the bird. No. 2 measures 1<sup>1</sup>/<sub>8</sub> inch over the articular -end. The series includes 6 specimens.</p> - - -<p class="center"><span class="smcap">IV. Proximal End of Radius.</span></p> - -<p>This bone terminated in an epiphysis which formed part of the -articular surface, and has disappeared from all the 7 specimens -mounted. So much of the articulation as remains does not oppose -the idea of its having been attached to the humerus, while the -large size of the example No. 7, which could not have measured -less than 2<sup>1</sup>/<sub>2</sub> inches from side to side over the articulation, 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 tibia, which is the only -other unknown bone to which these specimens could be referred.</p> - -<p>The longest specimen, No. 3, is 3 inches long; broadly ovate at -the fracture, measuring in the long diameter 1 inch, and in the -short diameter more than <sup>3</sup>/<sub>4</sub>ths of an inch. Nearer the articular end -the bone becomes in section sub-quadrate or rather sub-rhomboid. -No. 1 shows these terminal characters extremely well. On the -posterior aspect of the specimen the surface is divided into two -flattened slightly convex parts by a median vertical well-rounded -angular bend. In front the side is similarly divided into two -parts, both of them a little concave proximally, by a sharp median -vertical ridge, which does not reach to the articulation by a -varying distance, never so long as the bone is wide. The ridge -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_47" id="Page_47">« 47 »</a></span> -terminates in, and is pierced by, a vertical groove apparently for a -nutritive vessel. Where the anterior and posterior aspects of the -bone converge laterally the sides are well rounded.</p> - -<p>Only a small part of the articular surface is preserved, looking -upward and a little forward; it terminates the wider of the halves -of the bone laterally and in front. The remainder of the articular -surface, from which the epiphysis has come away, 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 ridge. The extreme lateral termination -appears to have been a ball-shaped convexity.</p> - -<p>The great length of the fore-arm relatively to the humerus, -characteristic of German Ornithosaurians, from the fragmentary -condition of Cambridge specimens is not seen.</p> - -<p>Although the fore-arm resembles Chrysochloris in <i>plan</i> the resemblance -is not close in the details of form. In many Mammals -it is characteristic for the radius to be the principal bone of the -fore-arm, 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 Crocodiles. And among mammals with claws, -as in the Lion, Bear, &c., and in the Chameleon, it is characteristic, -for the radius also to be on the inside of the limb at the distal end, -as in Ornithosaurians. In form, ridges, and muscular attachments -(see pl. 3) the distal end of the radius approximates closely to the -Bear and the Lion, and may also be compared with the Bats and -Birds, though with Birds it is a small bone. From the epiphysis -of the proximal end apparently being wanting it would be difficult -to compare closely. But though not like any particular mammal, -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 mammalia.</p> - -<p>The ulna of the Pterodactyles is at the proximal end altogether -distinguished from mammals by the slight development of the olecranon, -nor can the distal end, especially in its relation to the carpus, -be paralleled.</p> - -<p>Among birds and reptiles the ulna is the large bone, and here -a general resemblance in form to the ulna of Pterodactyles is seen -at the proximal end. It is not compressed from side to side as in -the Crocodile, Iguana, Monitor, &c., but from back to fronts in this -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_48" id="Page_48">« 48 »</a></span> -rather resembling Birds than the Chameleon. It however at the -distal end is more crocodilian.</p> - -<p>The fore-arm in plan is mammalian. The Pteroid bone is -mammalian, the Radius is mammalian and avian; the Ulna is -avian, and crocodilian in form, but mammalian in proportion. -The pneumatic foramen of the ulna is peculiarly avian.</p> - - -<div class="fig_left"> -<table summary="location"> -<tr> - <td class="smaller">Case.</td> - <td class="smaller">Comp.</td> - <td class="smaller">Tablet.</td> - <td class="smaller">Specimen.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="smaller"><b>J</b></td> - <td class="smaller"><i>b</i></td> - <td class="smaller">1</td> - <td class="smaller">1—13</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td></td> - <td></td> - <td class="smaller">2</td> - <td class="smaller">1—18</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td></td> - <td></td> - <td class="smaller">3</td> - <td class="smaller">1— 4</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td></td> - <td></td> - <td class="smaller">4</td> - <td class="smaller">1— 8</td> -</tr> -</table> -</div> - -<div class="div_center" style="padding: 0.5em 0;"> -CARPUS.<br /> -<br /> -<a href="#p_v">Pl. 5.</a> -</div> - -<p>The pterodactyle wrist is made up of three bones, arranged as -a proximal carpal, a distal carpal, and a lateral carpal. Two of -them are figured by Professor Owen, who regarded the distal carpal -of this description as the scapho-cuneiform; while A very imperfect -example of the proximal carpal is named the unciform: -neither of these determinations, the reverse of those which follow, -were given as more than probable guesses.</p> - - -<p class="center"><span class="smcap">I. Proximal Carpal.</span></p> - -<p>No. 10 shows the proximal surface well; portions of it are seen -in Nos. 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, and 12. The distal surface is best exhibited -in No. 1; portions of it are shown in Nos. 2, 3, 5, 7, 8. -No. 13 is an impression taken from the proximal surface of a distal -carpal to show its correspondence with distal surface of the proximal -carpal. The bone is proximally of an irregular oblong form, -being five sided, and much broader towards the inner end than -towards the outer end. The two ends are sub-parallel, and rather -obliquely connected on one side by a nearly straight border more -than twice as long as the shorter end. The other limits of the sub-parallel -ends are connected by two concave borders meeting in a -well rounded convexity, which is near to the broader inner end.</p> - -<p>The proximal surface of the bone is flattened, and may be divided -into a sub-rhomboid space, adjacent to the shorter of the sub-parallel -ends, which is moderately concave in the long axis of the -bone and slightly convex transversely, and an oblong space adjacent -to the longer of the two ends. This is separated from the sub-rhomboid -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_49" id="Page_49">« 49 »</a></span> -space, toward the straight side of the bone, by an elevated -ridge sub-parallel with the ends. It is directed towards the -convexity on the opposite side, in which the long and short concave -parts meet, but after half crossing the bone it becomes forked -in a U shape, and less elevated; the smooth unarticular included -space shows an oval pneumatic foramen, which varies in size with -the different species. The region between this Y-shaped ridge -and the longer of the two ends, is sub-reniform, slightly concave in -its long diameter, and deeply concave in the short diameter, exactly -corresponding in form with the articular surface already described -as the distal end of the ulna. 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 radius; that is, at the -convex angle of the angulated side is placed a hemispherical boss,' -interior to which is a hemispherical concavity, and extending toward -the straight side is the oblique smooth border of the sub-rhomboid -area described. There still remains a space to be accounted for. -This consists of a sub-quadrate area forming the corner of the bone -made by the concave side and the shorter outer end; it is -made up of an inner concave part separated from the radial articulation -by a ridge, and an outer convex part constituting the -shorter end of the bone.</p> - -<p>This carpal is moderately compressed from the proximal to the -distal side, except towards the shorter end of the bone, being -there prolonged distally into a wedge-shaped process, showing at -its termination marks of a powerful muscular attachment.</p> - -<p>The outer lateral surface is of variable antero-posterior extent.</p> - -<p>The distal articular surface is placed entirely toward the narrow -end of the bone, leaving at the proximal end a large smooth -rhomboid unarticular area, of which every side is a little concave: -it connects obliquely the proximal with the distal articular -surfaces. 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 rounded: it is slightly concave in length -as well as transversely, and is slightly twisted like the flukes of -a screw. Adjacent to this region laterally is the other and sub-triangular -part of the articulation. The broad end of the triangle -is toward the broad end of the bone; it is concave in length -and flattened transversely. The two parts of the articulation -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_50" id="Page_50">« 50 »</a></span> -are inclined to each other at a large angle, both looking downward -and outward, but on opposite sides of the bone.</p> - - -<p class="center"><span class="smcap">II. Distal Carpal.</span></p> - -<p>The tablets of this bone comprise 22 specimens. Nos. 2, 3, -4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 15, 16, 19 and 22 are so mounted as to exhibit -the proximal surface. Nos. 7, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 20 -and 21 show the distal surface of the bone. No. 17 is a cast -from the distal surface of a proximal carpal for comparison with -the proximal surface of the distal carpal. No. 16 is a cast from -the proximal end of the wing-metacarpal for comparison with the -distal surface of the distal carpal. No. 20 is a distal carpal of -unusual type, 19 is a cast from its proximal surface, and 21 is a -cast from the distal surface of the same specimen.</p> - -<p>The proximal aspect of this bone is rather narrower than the -distal aspect; each is sub-triangular in outline, the sides being -convexly curved. In the long axis from the apex on the inside -to the short outer<a name="FNanchor_17" id="FNanchor_17"></a><a href="#Footnote_17" class="fnanchor">[Q]</a> side the bone is convex proximally with an -oblique transverse depression; in the short axis, that is, between -the two longer sides, the middle of the bone is hollow, but the -oblique transverse depression makes both sides of the hollow convex,—so -that excepting the smooth unarticular triangular area adjacent -to the apex, 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 other: the apex of that cone which -should touch the short side or base of the triangle formed by -the bone, is truncated by a depression which exhibits an oval -pneumatic foramen. Towards the apex, on the same side as the -pneumatic foramen, the margin of the bone is rounded for a -small terminal oval articulation which looks outward and upward.</p> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_17" id="Footnote_17"></a><a href="#FNanchor_17"><span class="label">[Q]</span></a> Outer and inner are here used in accordance with the usual interpretation, -and the better to compare with birds.</p></div> - -<p>The lateral aspects of the bone are at right angles to the -proximal and distal surfaces. They are smooth, a little concave -in antero-posterior extent, and convex in the opposite direction. -That one on to which the marginal articular surface impinges is -except for that surface sub-quadrate in outline; the opposite side -has a slightly crescentic form, the flattened outline being distal. -They show several small foramina.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_51" id="Page_51">« 51 »</a></span></p> - -<p>The distal aspect of the bone is comparatively flat. The distal -surface consists of a smooth unarticular part adjacent to the apex, -rather smaller than the corresponding area on the proximal aspect -of the bone. Between this part and the sub-crescentic articular -surface, which occupies the remainder of the distal area, is a large -circular pit, furthest removed from the side of the bone which -forms the sub-apical marginal articulation. The pit on the apical -side shows several small foramina; on the outer side of the bone -the roughened articular surface extends down the pit side. The -articulation is flattened from side to side of the bone. Its outer -margin is slightly prominent, and the margin of the pit is slightly -convex and prominent, so that the intervening articular surface in -the direction between these limits is concave. It is commonly -divided into two parts by a median band limiting a depressed half, -which is in a slightly different plane from the other half of the articulation. -Where the depressed part terminates towards the marginal -articulation, which does not extend so far distally, there is between -the two a small step-like roughened articular portion.</p> - -<p>The large crescentic articulation described gave attachment to -the wing-metacarpal bone; if there was a second metacarpal -terminating in a claw, it must have been attached to the small -articulation last referred to. In No. 20 the pit is extremely small, -the impressed part of the articulation is small and deeply sunk, -while the apicular articulation is widened and shortened so as to -make the outline of the bone quadrate.</p> - - -<p class="center"><span class="smcap">III. Lateral Carpal.</span></p> - -<p>The tablet exhibits eight examples of a bone which at its -distal end is attached to the marginal apicular articulation of the -distal carpal, thence extending proximally, and terminating in an -articular facet for the third bone of the fore-arm, so as to overlap -laterally both of the other carpals. The bone is compressed, is -three times as wide as thick, and in outline sub-quadrate with a -distal talon. On the inner side it is flat, 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 side, and sometimes -bent at a sharp angle. The talon on the inner aspect of the bone is -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_52" id="Page_52">« 52 »</a></span> -flat and continuous with the quadrate side, but on the outer -aspect it is separated from the side by an elevated transverse thickening, -distally to which the bone is compressed, and rounded into -the adjacent parts. The talon extends over more than half of the -distal end of the bone, and constitutes with the remainder of the -distal end, the distal articulation, which is flat from front to back, -and concave from side to base. The proximal articulation is -cupped and extends over the whole proximal surface; it is at right -angles with the sides of the bone. Both the inner and outer sides -exhibit small pneumatic foramina. No. 8 differs from the other -specimens in its sub-triangular lateral outline, and general less -complex modifications.</p> - -<p>The Carpus of the Cambridge Ornithosaurians at first sight -is not easily compared with that of Birds; Birds having but one -bone between the radius and the metacarpus. But that one bone -in the Ostrich, for instance, is not unlike in form to the proximal -carpal of Pterodactyle; while the proximal end of the metacarpus -presents so close an analogy with the distal carpal of the Pterodactyle, -that even were it not easily demonstrated that the bone in -Birds commonly called the metacarpus is a carpo-metacarpus<a name="FNanchor_18" id="FNanchor_18"></a><a href="#Footnote_18" class="fnanchor">[R]</a>, it -would be strong evidence for such a determination. In Birds there -is a small lateral bone between the ulna and carpo-metacarpus -which is evidently homologous with the lateral carpal of our -Pterodactyles, and so, since this lateral carpal of the Ostrich is the -pisiform bone, it results that the lateral carpal of Pterodactyle is -the pisiform bone also. From this follows a conclusion of the first -importance in the interpretation of the hand. The fine hair-like -metacarpals of the Pterodactyle are on the side towards the pisiform -bone, while the great wing-metacarpal is on the side towards -the index finger.</p> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_18" id="Footnote_18"></a><a href="#FNanchor_18"><span class="label">[R]</span></a> They separate without difficulty in the Chicken.</p></div> - -<p>In Birds the rudimentary thumb (or second finger, according to -Owen) has no connection with the carpus. In the Penguin, <i>Aptenodytes -Patagonica</i>, it has disappeared altogether, and there then -remain two fingers of which the outer one (seen from the front -as we have placed our animal) is the larger, and has the greatest -number of phalanges, precisely as in Ornithosaurians. Moreover -the wing-metacarpal, in the Penguin especially, is seen to unite -with the carpus directly under the radius, as is the case with the -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_53" id="Page_53">« 53 »</a></span> -Cambridge Ornithosaurians. Hence it follows that in Pterodactyles -the thumb is not developed, and that the wing-finger is not the -little finger, but the index finger, precisely as in Birds. If Goldfuss -gave a reverse arrangement it was because the hand in his -specimen, as is proved by the claws, was upside down. In the -immature state the distal carpal of Pterodactyle appears to have -been composite.</p> - -<p>Notwithstanding the opinions of eminent German philosophers -to the contrary no reptile has a carpus comparable to that of the -Pterodactyle. If some of them have two rows of bones and a pisiform -bone, so have mammals, and the mammalian arrangement is -not more like the Ornithosauria than is that in Reptiles.</p> - - -<div class="fig_left"> -<table summary="location"> -<tr> - <td class="smaller">Case.</td> - <td class="smaller">Comp.</td> - <td class="smaller">Tablet.</td> - <td class="smaller">Specimen.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="smaller"><b>J</b></td> - <td class="smaller"><i>b</i></td> - <td class="smaller">5</td> - <td class="smaller">1 3</td> -</tr> -</table> -</div> - -<div class="div_center"> -METACARPAL BONE.<br /> -<br /> -<a href="#p_vi">Pl. 6.</a> -</div> - -<p>The illustrations of this bone comprise 31 specimens. Nos. 1 -to 15 are examples of the proximal end, and Nos. 16 to 31 show -the distal trochlear end of the bone. No. 1, which is nearly -entire, gives the form and proportions of the wing-metacarpal in -one species, 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 example. It is -3<sup>5</sup>/<sub>8</sub> inches long, to which three-eighths of an inch may be added for -the distal articulation, making the length up to 4 inches. The -proximal end is not well preserved, but in its wide measurement -is <sup>5</sup>/<sub>8</sub>ths of an inch; the distal end in the same measurement is -about <sup>3</sup>/<sub>8</sub>ths of an inch. A large example from the Chalk, in the -Museum of C. Moore Esq. of Bath, shows the bone more attenuated -distally. No. 1 is compressed so as to be oblong in -section at the proximal end, and ovate in the middle of the shaft, -which is slightly smaller than the distal end. One of the lateral -outlines is straight; the other is concave. The bone is straight. -In No. 30 the shaft where thickest measures less than <sup>1</sup>/<sub>4</sub> of an inch, -becoming nearly circular in section. The shaft of No. 31 measures -nearly an inch in width at its distal end, rather more than half an inch -in thickness. No. 10 is 1<sup>1</sup>/<sub>2</sub> inch wide at the proximal end and <sup>7</sup>/<sub>8</sub>ths -of an inch thick. No. 9 would not have measured less when perfect -than 2<sup>1</sup>/<sub>2</sub> inches over the proximal end, so that if it had the -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_54" id="Page_54">« 54 »</a></span> -proportions of No. 1 it would have measured when entire not less -than 16 inches in length.</p> - -<p class="center"><span class="smcap">The Proximal End.</span></p> - -<p>The proximal end has never been figured. Prof. Owen's -figure pl. <span class="smcap">IV.</span> fig, 4-5, First Supt. Cret. Rep. is probably part -of a jaw, and not the wing-metacarpal. 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 -bone.</p> - -<p>In the middle of the flat inside margin and extending proximally -is a semi-cylindrical process, which is prolonged a short -distance down the side of the bone as an elevated ridge. On the -flattened articular end this process is bordered by a semicircular -furrow which extends half-way across the bone, outside of which is -a slightly convex semicircular band which extends to the outer margin -of the bone, except towards the short side opposite to that one -which rounds into the outer side, where there appears to be a -narrow unarticular area. 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 distally; they are both -limited by inward extensions of the short sides of the bone, that -crest being most developed in height and length which is toward -the flattened short side. The outline which these modifications -give to the inner side of the proximal surface is intermediate -in form between the letters S and <img src="images/m_rot.png" width="11" height="14" alt="" />.</p> - - -<p class="center"><span class="smcap">The Distal End.</span></p> - -<p>The distal end has been figured by Prof. Owen in the British -Fossil Mammals, p. 545; in Dixon's Geology of Sussex, Pl. <span class="smcap">XXIX.</span> -fig. 12; Cret. Reptiles, Pl. <span class="smcap">XXXII.</span> figs. 4 and 5, First Supt. Pl. <span class="smcap">IV</span>, -fig. 9-11, and other places, and fully described. It closely resembles -the distal end of a bird's tibia; and consists of a pulley-shaped -end set obliquely on to the compressed shaft, which just above -the junction is reniform in section, owing to the development -of <i>a median rounded ridge</i> on the same inner side of the bone -which bears the median ridge at the proximal end, while on -the opposite side there is a corresponding <i>median depression</i> -which does not extend far proximally. In this depression is -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_55" id="Page_55">« 55 »</a></span> -an oval pneumatic foramen; on the right of the median ridge -of the other side, but placed more distally, is another pneumatic -foramen. The median ridge has sometimes a slight furrow on -each side. It terminates proximally in strong muscular insertions, -which extend round the right side of the bone; and distally, -becoming more elevated and rounded, it curves obliquely to the -rights and forming one of the sides of the pulley, passes round the -base as three quarters of a spiral, the termination extending laterally -beyond the shaft. On this side of the bone, distal to the -median depression, arises another ridge strong and well rounded, -which is directed to the right, similarly passes round the base as -a spiral, and forms the other side of the pulley. It is not so prominent -as the border previously described. While the spirals -approximate at their origin, they become widely separated at the -base, making the articulation wider than the shaft. In No. 31 -the three inches of the shaft which remain show both pairs of -its sides sub-parallel; the widest measures nearly an inch; the -base of the articulation is less than a quarter of an inch wider.</p> - -<p>Limited to the base, between the two outer ridges of the pulley, -is a short median ridge slightly developed; so as to flatten the -middle of the concavity between the ridges, and divide it into two -grooves. The degree to which the middle ridge is developed varies -in different species. In No. 30, the smallest pterodactyle, remarkable -for a long wing-metacarpal bone, it is not to be detected. The -exterior sides of the trochlear articulation are broad, flattened, -and a little concave.</p> - -<p>There is some variation in the way in which the shaft is set -on the trochlear end. It being often in the middle, but not -unfrequently inclined more to one side than to the other.</p> - -<p>The metacarpus finds no close parallel among living animals. -The thread-like metacarpal bones suggest the condition of the hind-foot -in the Kangaroo. The predominant metacarpal suggests the -ruminants. 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 slender. This may be observed (among other examples) -in the Penguin and the Swan. But here the parallel ends. -The proximal end in Birds, we have already seen to be hidden by -the anchylosed distal row of the carpus, and the distal end though -often convex from side to side never presents the trochlear joint of -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_56" id="Page_56">« 56 »</a></span> -the Pterodactyle. Consequently so far as regards the form of the -articular ends the resemblance is closer with Reptiles and clawed -Mammals than with Birds. In Birds the small metacarpal is -usually of similar length with the large one as is the case with -Pterodactyles.</p> - - -<div class="fig_left"> -<table summary="location"> -<tr> - <td class="smaller">Case.</td> - <td class="smaller">Comp.</td> - <td class="smaller">Tablet.</td> - <td class="smaller">Specimen.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="smaller"><b>J</b></td> - <td class="smaller"><i>b</i></td> - <td class="smaller">6</td> - <td class="smaller">1—10</td> -</tr> -</table> -</div> - -<div class="div_center"> -FIRST PHALANGE.<br /> -<br /> -<a href="#p_vii">Pl. 7.</a> -</div> - -<p>No perfect specimen of the first phalange has been found in the -Cambridge Greensand. Ten bones are mounted to illustrate it, all -of them less perfect than others in the series of associated bones. -No. 1 shows the heel of the proximal end; Nos. 9 and 10 are -portions of the proximal articulation from which the epiphysis -which forms the articular heel-part seen in No. 1 has come away. -Nos. 2 to 8 are the distal articular ends of first phalanges. It -is improbable that any of them belong to the second phalange, -since they agree in form, and show muscular attachments which -correspond.</p> - -<p>Prof. Owen has figured the shaft of a fine example of this bone -in Dixon's Geology of Sussex, Pl. <span class="smcap">XXXIX.</span> fig. 11. A good proximal -end is shown in Pl. <span class="smcap">XXXII.</span> fig. 2, of Prof. Owen's monograph of the -Cretaceous Reptilia, but the figure appears to have been previously -given in Pl. <span class="smcap">XXIV.</span> fig. 2 of the same monograph. By far the -grandest specimens are drawn in Pl. <span class="smcap">XXX.</span> Prof. Owen names -these wing bones. In the "Literature of English Pterodactyles" -the loss of the proximal epiphysis from the specimen represented in -Prof Owen's fig. 1 and 2 led me to interpret the bone as an ulna. -Figs. 1 to 4 represent the proximal ends and greater portions of -the shafts of first phalanges. The lower bone in fig. 5 is neither -radius nor ulna, as stated in the text of the Cretaceous Reptilia, -but the shaft and distal end of a first phalange; the upper bone -being the second phalange.</p> - -<p class="center"><span class="smcap">The Proximal End.</span></p> - -<p>The straight shaft throughout its length is triangular in section. -One side of the bone is gently convex; this may be named for -convenience the outside. The two parts which make up the other -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_57" id="Page_57">« 57 »</a></span> -side are inclined, and have the angle in which they meet rounded; -one part looks upward and inward, the other downward and inward. -Towards the proximal end the bone widens and thickens, -and the moiety of the inner side which is away from the heel -becomes cleft, and has the sides of the depression rounded to form -a large pneumatic foramen. The articular surface looks upward -and a little outward on the side of the pneumatic foramen. It -consists of two semicircular concave grooves, separated by an intervening -low convexity. The outer of these grooves extends -from the margin of the extreme proximal point of the heel to the -widest point of the bone; the other groove more deeply concave, -is a third shorter, extending from inside the pneumatic foramen to -the heel. Here both grooves converge, terminating in a point, -exterior to which a little distally is a hemispherical mammilate -eminence. On the distal side of the eminence there is a depression -so as to make the angle behind the heel almost hemispherically -rounded. This articulation fits on to the distal articulation -of the wing-metacarpal.</p> - -<p>When the proximal epiphysis forming the heel comes away, it -leaves a large sub-circular pit with a depressed narrow border.</p> - -<p class="center"><span class="smcap">Distal End.</span></p> - -<p>On nearing the distal end, the angle of the inner side of the -shaft becomes more depressed; and the articulation becomes an -elongated oval, 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 inward. Hence the two articular surfaces are sub-parallel; -but the distal one at its distal termination is bent inward, -so as to make the adjacent lateral outline of the bone -concave on the inside at its termination. The articulation does -not cover the most proximal part of the distal surface.</p> - - -<div class="fig_left"> -<table summary="location"> -<tr> - <td class="smaller">Case.</td> - <td class="smaller">Comp.</td> - <td class="smaller">Tablet.</td> - <td class="smaller">Specimen.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="smaller"><b>J</b></td> - <td class="smaller"><i>b</i></td> - <td class="smaller">7</td> - <td class="smaller">1—14</td> -</tr> -</table> -</div> - -<div class="div_center"> -SECOND PHALANGE.<br /> -<br /> -<a href="#p_vii">Pl. 7.</a> -</div> - -<p>On this tablet are mounted 14 specimens. Nos. 1 to 9 are -examples of the proximal end of the second phalange. If there -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_58" id="Page_58">« 58 »</a></span> -were more than two phalanges, of which there is no osteological -evidence, it is possible that proximal ends of succeeding phalanges -may be included with these. They all however resemble each, -other so closely as to lend no support to such a supposition. Nos. -?10 to ?14 have been mounted with the proximal ends because -they appear to be portions of the middle of the shaft of the -second phalange; they indicate a rapid distal attenuation, favouring -the idea of there being but two phalanges.</p> - -<p>The proximal end of the shaft has the outer side flattened, -rarely concave, commonly slightly convex; the inner side being -much more inflated, and not dissimilar in form to the inner -side of the first phalange. Proximally the bone widens and one -lateral outline extends outward in a curve, on the inner side -of which, under the proximal articulation, is placed the pneumatic -foramen. The elongated oval articular surface is concave -from side to side and concave in length; it does not extend in -length so far as the straight side outline, exterior to it being a -crescentic flattened or convex area. The distal end attenuates -more rapidly in some specimens than others, and appears in Nos. -11, 12, and 14 eventually to become cylindrical; but none of the -specimens show its distal termination.</p> - -<p>The phalanges of the wing-finger attain a grand development in -length which is not paralleled in Birds, nor surpassed in Bats. In -the Ostrich there are three phalanges in the wing-finger, while in -Ornithopterus there are two joints, and in other German Pterodactyles -four joints. The terminal joint in the Ostrich is a claw, but -in Pterodactyle the terminal joint appears to be unarmed as in ordinary -birds. The form of the bones in being compressed from side -to side is more bird-like than bat-like. But the claws in their -compression from side to side are more like the bat than the bird.</p> - - -<div class="fig_left"> -<table summary="location"> -<tr> - <td class="smaller">Case.</td> - <td class="smaller">Comp.</td> - <td class="smaller">Tablet.</td> - <td class="smaller">Specimen.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="smaller"><b>J</b></td> - <td class="smaller"><i>b</i></td> - <td class="smaller">7</td> - <td class="smaller">1—14</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td colspan="4"> </td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td colspan="4"> </td> -</tr> -</table> -</div> - -<div class="div_center"> -DISTAL END OF METACARPAL<br /> -<br /> -<span class="smcap">or Metatarsal Bones.</span><br /> -<br /> -<a href="#p_vi">Pl. 6.</a> -</div> - -<p>Sub-cylindrical bones, apparently elongated, and a little compressed -obliquely, terminating distally in a slightly expanded -trochlear articulation. Some of them show on one side marks -of an osseous adhesion: this has led to their being regarded as -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_59" id="Page_59">« 59 »</a></span> -claw metacarpals rather than as the distal ends of tibiæ. But -on the supposition of their being claw metacarpals, they are as -compared with the same bones in <i>Pt. Suevicus</i>, out of all proportion -large, since wing-metacarpals from the Cambridge Greensand -would not as a rule have a diameter more than twice -that of these bones. The trochlear articulation is smaller in -proportion to the shaft than in the wing-metacarpal, and usually -shows a pit at the side and grooves above for ligaments; the -mesial pulley groove is shallow and broad. Seven specimens are -mounted in illustration, of which No. 3 may be regarded as -doubtful. It is possible that they may be metatarsals.</p> - - -<div class="fig_left"> -<table summary="location"> -<tr> - <td class="smaller">Case.</td> - <td class="smaller">Comp.</td> - <td class="smaller">Tablet.</td> - <td class="smaller">Specimen.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="smaller"><b>J</b></td> - <td class="smaller"><i>b</i></td> - <td class="smaller">8</td> - <td class="smaller">1—3</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td colspan="4"> </td> -</tr> -</table> -</div> - -<div class="div_center"> -CLAW PHALANGE.<br /> -<br /> -<a href="#p_viii">Pl. 8.</a> -</div> - -<p>These three sub-triangular bones, which supported the claws, -are much compressed from side to side, and consequently deep. -The superior outline is convex from front to back and rounded -from side to side. The inferior outline is concave from front to -back, sometimes narrower, sometimes broader than the upper part -of the bone, while the inferior aspect is always more flattened -than the superior aspect. On each side on the lower half of the -bone is a deep groove. The articular end is divided into an -upper articular part, which extends as far down as the lateral -groove and a lower non-articular part with ligament markings. -The articulation is concave from above downward, and is -divided into two lateral parts by a mesial vertical ridge. The -articular end is about half as deep as the bone is long.</p> - - -<div class="fig_left"> -<table summary="location"> -<tr> - <td class="smaller">Case.</td> - <td class="smaller">Comp.</td> - <td class="smaller">Tablet.</td> - <td class="smaller">Specimen.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="smaller"><b>J</b></td> - <td class="smaller"><i>b</i></td> - <td class="smaller">10</td> - <td class="smaller">1—9</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td colspan="4"> </td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td colspan="4"> </td> -</tr> -</table> -</div> - -<div class="div_center"> -<span class="smcap">Pelvic Girdle and Hind Limb.</span><br /> -<br /> -OS INNOMINATUM.<br /> -<br /> -<a href="#p_viii">Pl. 8.</a> -</div> - -<p>Nine specimens are mounted in illustration of the pelvic girdle: -Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 show the acetabular or femoral aspects. -The right os innominatum is exemplified by Nos. 1, 4 and 5; -the left by Nos. 3 and 6. No. 2 shows the sacral aspect of a -left ischium, and its attachments with the pubis and ilium. No. 8 -is the sacral aspect of a left os pubis. No. 9 is the femoral aspect -of a right OS pubis. None of the specimens are sufficiently complete -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_60" id="Page_60">« 60 »</a></span> -to give the form of any of the bones. The only known -example of an entire or nearly entire pelvis at all comparable in -form, is seen in the original specimen of Dimorphodon macronyx -figured by Buckland, <i>Trans. Geol. Soc.</i> Ser. 2. vol. <span class="smcap">III.</span> p. 217. In -nearly all the fossils from the Cambridge Greensand the bones of -the pelvis are anchylosed together.</p> - -<p>The ossa innominata have been determined as right and left -on the supposition that the pelvis of the Dimorphodon is in -situ, and from the general correspondence of the form of the -constituent elements with elements of the pelvis in the lower -mammals, reptiles, and birds.</p> - -<p>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 cup, that is to say, which extends -dorsally along the sacral vertebræ is prolonged anteriorly as a -strong narrow straight style, the base of which is seen in the parts -marked <i>Ilium</i> in Nos. 1 and 6. A more perfect example may be -studied in a pelvis from the Cambridge Greensand preserved in -the collection of the Geological survey. Posterior to the acetabulum -a similar but stronger bony style extends for more than the length -of the acetabulum, curving slightly downward at its posterior part. -The dorsal outline of this portion of the bone is slightly concave. -The posterior horn like the anterior horn forms part of the ilium -which constitutes the upper half of the acetabular cup. The os innominatum -contracts in antero-posterior extent below the acetabulum, -and immediately widens again in a thin concave bony expansion. -The anterior or pubic outline is comparatively straight, and -at right angles with the ilium; the posterior or ischiac outline is -deeply cupped where the ischium unites with the ilium, and -becoming straight extends backward at a considerable angle. -The ischium contributes less to the pelvic cup than either the -ilium or pubis; it is flat in front and convex on the visceral side, -rounding into the narrow flattened posterior side. The pubis is -separated from the ischium by a suture extending vertically through -the obturator foramen. The obturator foramen [seen in No. 9] is -small and oval, less than half the diameter of the acetabulum, situated -below its ventral border. It passes obliquely downward and -a little forward, and its opening makes the exterior aspect of the -pubis concave; the visceral aspect of the pubis is convex from side to -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_61" id="Page_61">« 61 »</a></span> -side like the ischium. The sacral aspect of so much of the os -innominatum as is seen, is concave from the dorsal to the ventral -margins, and is cupped behind and below the acetabulum, the -surface being rough. Among reptiles the ilium is chiefly behind -the acetabulum, in mammals it is chiefly in front. In the over-lapping -group, Aves, it extends both ways. Among the Amphibia -the ilium is chiefly anterior to the acetabulum. In Crocodiles it -has a slight extension both ways, in Dinosaurs the extensions are -more marked and the whole arrangement approximates to birds. -But among animals which have been affiliated with reptiles the -Dicynodonts are the only order in which there is a pelvis so -mammalian and massive. If the ilium of the Monotreme genus -Echidna had a posterior extension, the pelvis would be altogether -comparable with the pelvis of this Pterodactyle, and would differ -chiefly in the larger obturator foramen, the perforated acetabulum -and the unanchylosed condition of the pelvic elements. The pelvis -of Apteryx does not make any near approximation.</p> - -<p>Moreover specimens Nos. 3 and 4 show on the anterior pubic -border, about the base of the acetabulum, a slight pit or roughness -to which something has been attached, 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 Echidna. Most German Pterodactyles show -on the OS pubis an enormous prepubic bone. In Iguana the -pubis forms at its anterior border, a sharp angular process. -In Chelydra the process is long and narrower, and arises from -the middle of the border. In Echidna this prepubic process has -become a distinct prepubic bone and is more elongated. Unlike -the marsupial bones it is attached to the pubis by a wide base. -The anterior pubic roughness of Cambridge specimens, and the -loose bones of the Dimorphodon, &c. indicate the existence of -structures in the Ornithosauria homologous with the prepubic -bones of the Ornithodelphia.</p> - -<p>So far as it is comparable with living animals, the ilium is -altogether avian, differing in being narrower; and the pubis and -ischium are mammalian.</p> - -<p>The upper anterior corner is the most elevated part of the -acetabular border, as in the great Auk and some birds of vertical -position of body, and many mammals.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_62" id="Page_62">« 62 »</a></span></p> - - -<div class="fig_left"> -<table summary="location"> -<tr> - <td class="smaller">Case.</td> - <td class="smaller">Comp.</td> - <td class="smaller">Tablet.</td> - <td class="smaller">Specimen.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="smaller"><b>J</b></td> - <td class="smaller"><i>b</i></td> - <td class="smaller">11</td> - <td class="smaller">1—16</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td colspan="4"> </td> -</tr> -</table> -</div> - -<div class="div_center"> -FEMUR.<br /> -<br /> -<a href="#p_viii">Pl. 8.</a> -</div> - -<p>Twenty-six specimens are mounted to illustrate the Femur. -10 are proximal ends; 16 distal ends. But in the series illustrative -of species is an entire specimen of a right Femur 4 inches -long. Fragments Nos. 3 and 12 show proximal and distal ends -twice as large, but most of the examples are about the size of the -entire femur.</p> - -<p>It is a straight sub-cylindrical bone, flattened in front, a little -compressed from front to back distally, and (in one type) compressed -proximally from side to side behind. The distal articulation -has a broad shallow channel passing down from the front and -imperfectly separating two condyloid parts, which extend a little -backward and are divided behind. The outer condyle extends a -little outward, 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 mammals. Proximally the shaft contracts -suddenly and is produced upward, forward, and inward -as a rounded neck, as long as in the femur of any mammalian -carnivore, which expands rapidly at the end to form the hemispherical -ball, which articulates with the pelvic acetabulum.</p> - -<p>No. 1 shows a well-marked pit for the ligamentum teres at -the back part of the ball. At the proximal end of the shaft -below the neck is a large pit for the obturator muscle, and at -the outer front angle a great trochanter. Proximally the bone -can only be compared with the mammalian Carnivora, Quadrumana -and Man; distally it is avian and mammalian.</p> - -<p>In one genus exemplified by specimens 5-10 the obturator -pit is not developed.</p> - -<p>Sometimes the shaft is curved a little convexly, outward and -forward.</p> - -<div class="fig_left"> -<table summary="location"> -<tr> - <td class="smaller">Case.</td> - <td class="smaller">Comp.</td> - <td class="smaller">Tablet.</td> - <td class="smaller">Specimen.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="smaller"><b>J</b></td> - <td class="smaller"><i>b</i></td> - <td class="smaller">12</td> - <td class="smaller">1—11</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td colspan="4"> </td> -</tr> -</table> -</div> - -<div class="div_center"> -TIBIA.<br /> -<br /> -<a href="#p_viii">Pl. 8.</a> -</div> - -<p>Eleven specimens are mounted to illustrate the tibia, of which -1 to 9 are regarded as proximal ends; and 10, 11 with less confidence -are regarded as distal ends from which the distal epiphysis -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_63" id="Page_63">« 63 »</a></span> -has come away. 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 bird.</p> - -<p>The bone is at the proximal end straight and sub-cylindrical, -slowly enlarging proximally; convex behind, except for an elevated -boss some little way below the proximal articulation for -the attachment of powerful muscles. In front the shaft is a -little flattened proximally, with a mesial groove dividing two prominences -which are apparently homologous with the ridges below -the patella in birds. The proximal articular surface truncates the -shaft at right angles except at what is regarded as the outer front -aspect, where it rises into a small patelloid prominence.</p> - -<p>It shows the impressions of two condyles, which correspond -in form with the distal end of the Femur.</p> - -<p>Nos. 3 and 6 are regarded as left tibia; Nos. 4, 5, 7, 8, 9 as -examples of right tibia.</p> - -<p>No specimen likely to be a fibula has been found. In Dimorphodon -and in German Genera the fibula is Avian in form. The -Crocodile offers some approximation to the Pterodactyle shape in -the proximal end of the Tibia, but the Pterodactyle has Avian -characters in addition. Its straightness and length, ridges on the -front and patelloid prominence, are Avian.</p> - -<div class="fig_left"> -<table summary="location"> -<tr> - <td class="smaller">Case.</td> - <td class="smaller">Comp.</td> - <td class="smaller">Tablet.</td> - <td class="smaller">Specimen.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="smaller"><b>J</b></td> - <td class="smaller"><i>b</i></td> - <td class="smaller">13</td> - <td class="smaller">1</td> -</tr> -</table> -</div> - -<div class="div_center"> -TARSUS OR TARSO-METATARSUS.<br /> -<br /> -<a href="#p_viii">Pl. 8.</a> -</div> - -<p>This fragment, which may be the distal end of the bone corresponding -to that called in birds the tarsus or tarso-metatarsus, -is badly preserved. Yet so close is its resemblance in form, structure, -and apposition of the constituent bones to what obtains -among birds, that it may probably be identified as the tarsus; -while the peculiar characteristics of Pterodactyle bones which it -shows, demonstrate that it is not from a bird, but from an Ornithosaurian -skeleton.</p> - -<p>The bones are of paper thinness, and consist of a strong -bone behind which distally appears on the inner side to be compressed -and thrown backward and flattened at the side, exactly -like the inner toe in Natatorial birds. On the front of this -strong support, confluent with it, and confluent together, so that -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_64" id="Page_64">« 64 »</a></span> -the places of union are only seen at the distal end and in transverse -section, are three bones, together as wide as the bone on which -they rest. It does not appear possible that the distal articulations -could have supported more than three digits.</p> - -<p>This bone, if correctly determined, offers points of affinity -with birds as pronounced and as important as any thing shown -by the extremities, for among reptiles a welding of the (tarsal or) -tarso-metatarsal bones is unknown, and here it is as absolute as -in any bird, and takes a characteristic bird shape. In the Rodent -Jerboa the metatarsus has much the same form as in a bird.</p> - -<p>No phalanges have been recognised.</p> - - -<div class="fig_left"> -<table summary="location"> -<tr> - <td class="smaller">Case.</td> - <td class="smaller">Comp.</td> - <td class="smaller">Tablet.</td> - <td class="smaller">Specimen.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="smaller"><b>J</b></td> - <td class="smaller"><i>c</i></td> - <td class="smaller">1</td> - <td class="smaller">1—15</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td colspan="4"> </td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td colspan="4"> </td> -</tr> -</table> -</div> - -<div class="div_center"> -<span class="smcap">The Vertebral Column.</span><br /> -<br /> -ATLAS AND AXIS.<br /> -<br /> -<a href="#p_ix">Pl. 9.</a> -</div> - -<p>Fifteen specimens are mounted to exemplify the structures -of the Pterodactyle atlas and axis. Nos. 1, 11, and 2 have -already been figured, and described by Prof Owen, the latter as -a section of a cervical vertebra.</p> - -<p>The <i>atlas</i> centrum, a saucer-shaped disk of bone, commonly -united more or less intimately with the centrum of the axis, but -sometimes free. It presents in front a hemispherical cup for the -basi-occipital, and is flattened or slightly convex behind. Its -neural arch is seen in Nos. 2, 10, and 12; but the only specimen -with the arch entire is in the museum of James Carter, Esq. -The neurapophyses vary in form and size, but always are small -obliquely flattened lamellar bones, which extend upward and backward -to meet the neural arch of the axis, just above the neural -canal, where a thin and small cross piece connects them -together.</p> - -<p>The distinctive aspect of these bones is given by the neural -arch of the <i>axis</i>, which is very much elevated, and is formed -by two flattened sides, which meet in a vertical ridge above the -neural canal, and look forward, outward and upward; extending -laterally more and more beyond the side of the centrum, but not -reaching so far back as the posterior articulation of the centrum. -Each side of the neural arch at its middle part behind is produced -into a thick obliquely flattened process, the under portion of which -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_65" id="Page_65">« 65 »</a></span> -shows the small posterior zygapophysial facets, which look downward, -outward and backward. The lateral outline of the part of -the neural arch above this process is concave; as is the lateral outline -between it and the centrum. Behind, the neural arch is concave, -and looks a little backward. The neural canal is stirrup-shaped in -front, but is higher and sub-ovate behind. The neural arch of -this, as of all the other vertebræ, except a few dorsals, is inseparably -united to the centrum, without a trace of the line of -union. In the middle of the side of the vertebra, and at what may -be presumed to be the union between the neural arch and the -centrum, in a concavity, is the pneumatic foramen. It is round or -oval, and varies in form and size though not in position. In No. -8 it exhibits the subdivided reticular structure characteristic of -the pneumatic foramina of birds. In No. 10, which has a short -centrum, the pneumatic cavities are reduced to a few small perforations, -no larger than would be made with fine needles.</p> - -<p>The centrum is shorter than in cervical vertebræ, commonly -convex (No. 8) on the visceral surface; often with a slight longitudinal -hypapophysial ridge (Nos. 1; 7; 12) rarely flattened (No. 10). -Towards the hinder part the centrum widens, and becomes concave -on the visceral surface, sending off as do the other cervicals, -below the transversely elongated posterior articulation, a pair of -short strong apophyses.</p> - -<p>The posterior articulation can only by a modification of the idea -be said to conform to the cup-and-ball plan, for though convex from -above downward and convex from side to side, the elongated -transverse measurement would be three times the depth. On -the under side an impressed transverse line divides the articulation -from the concave part of the centrum below.</p> - - -<div class="fig_left"> -<table summary="location"> -<tr> - <td class="smaller">Case.</td> - <td class="smaller">Comp.</td> - <td class="smaller">Tablet.</td> - <td class="smaller">Specimen.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="smaller"><b>J</b></td> - <td class="smaller"><i>c</i></td> - <td class="smaller">2</td> - <td class="smaller">1—43</td> -</tr> -</table> -</div> - -<div class="div_center"> -<span class="smcap">Cervical Vertebræ.</span><br /> -<br /> -<a href="#p_ix">Pl. 9.</a> -</div> - -<p>Forty-three specimens are mounted to exemplify the variations -in size and characters of cervical vertebræ. These for the -most part are specific characters; and between the axis and the -first dorsal vertebra the variations in an individual were slight. -[Those nearest to the back, as in birds, are widest in front, and -have the highest neural arches.] The associated series show commonly -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_66" id="Page_66">« 66 »</a></span> -four cervical vertebræ behind the axis, and in two cases -apparently five; never more. So that as seven appears to be -the number of true cervical vertebræ in most if not all of the -German Pterodactyles, it may be presumed that the Cretaceous -Ornithosaurians also had this character in common, with Mammals, -and probably as persistent. In Iguana there are 6, in Monitor -7, and in Crocodile 8.</p> - -<p>The centrum is united to the neural arch as in birds, without -a trace of suture; sometimes the neural arch is no wider than -the centrum, sometimes it extends over the centrum on each -side. Those forms with a narrow neural arch have the neural -spine high, and its sides look forward as well as outward. The -pneumatic foramen is oblique. An example is figured by Prof. -Owen, in the memoir on Pterodactylus simus, pl. 2, fig. 4. The -forms with a wide neural arch have the neural spine rising from -the middle of the dorsal surface, erect and equally compressed -from side to side. The pneumatic foramen is horizontal. An -example is figured in Prof. Owen's memoir on Pt. simus, pl. 2, -fig. 1. These two forms of cervical vertebræ may be regarded -as typifying two genera.</p> - -<p>In both forms many characters occur in common, and as the -specimens illustrative of special modifications will be described -hereafter, the following description has been made to embrace -the chief characteristics of these vertebræ in Cretaceous Ornithosaurians.</p> - -<p>The inferior aspect of the centrum is oblong (being narrower -than long), or quadrate; when quadrate the additional lateral -expansions are external to the pneumatic foramina, and are -formed by the neural arch and zygapophyses. The centrum -proper is a little wider in front than behind, and the side outlines -are concave. The base of the centrum is flattened, or more or -less hollow, or more or less tumid and regularly convex; in front -there is often a mesial ridge, which never reaches the posterior -articulation, and forms a prominent tubercle at the base of the -anterior articulation. At the posterior end the outline of the -centrum is concave, and mesially the bone has a hollow corresponding -to the tubercle in front of the adjacent vertebra; -and the part of the centrum on each side is prolonged slightly -into a strong rounded or flattened tubercle below the side borders -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_67" id="Page_67">« 67 »</a></span> -of the posterior articulation; these posterior processes, in -vertebræ in situ, fitted, on each side of the mesial anterior process -of the vertebra behind, on to concavities more or less marked. -Analagous processes are developed in the cervical vertebræ of -many birds.</p> - -<p>All the Cretaceous Pterodactyles have the articular surfaces -of the centrum transversely oblong, as have some birds. The -posterior articulation is convex from side to side, and convex from -above downward, and appears to extend a little further on this -neural than on the hæmal surface; in outline it is commonly an -elongated oval, but sometimes attends on the upper surface of the -inferior lateral tubercles. The anterior articulation is transversely -elongated, concave in both directions, and sub-triangular in outline; -that is to say, the superior outline is more or less convex, and -from its limits to the mesial tubercle at the base, the inferior -outlines are more or less concave.</p> - -<p>The neural canal is sub-circular or ovate in outline, and quite -as large as the neural canal in vertebræ of Dinornis of similar -size.</p> - -<p>The neural arch like the centrum has commonly a depressed -appearance. It always has a neural spinous process which is directed -upward. In the depressed type the neural surface of the vertebra -is in outline usually sub-quadrate, but concave at each side, and -concave in front and behind; the four corners are the processes -which support the zygapophysial facets, the surface is divided into -two lateral parts by the strong neural spine. These lateral -parts are from front to back flat, or slightly concave, or slightly -convex; and from the neural spine outward they are always -concave. The neural spine is commonly sharp in front and -flattened behind. The neural arch is placed well forward, so -that while a third of the neural canal remains uncovered by it -behind, rarely a sixth would be uncovered in front.</p> - -<p>The anterior and posterior zygapophyses are commonly connected -by a more or less rounded ridge, undefined above, but -well defined below, since under its posterior part at about the -middle of the side of the centrum is placed the pneumatic -foramen.</p> - -<p>The anterior zygapophysial processes are separated from the -anterior articular surface of the centrum by a more or less oblique -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_68" id="Page_68">« 68 »</a></span> -channel. Towards the base of this channel in many vertebræ -may be seen a small and short flattened antero-posterior perforation -corresponding in position with the usually large perforation -for the vertebral artery. If the passages are to be regarded as -having subserved such a function, it will not be without interest -to remark the small relative size of the cerebellum in these -animals; since the vertebral artery conveys the blood to that -region of the brain.</p> - -<p>The anterior zygapophyses are strong processes directed forward -and outward, compressed a little from side to side; they are -placed at the outer sides of the anterior articular face of the centrum, -and extend in front of it.</p> - -<p>The zygapophysial facet is commonly oval and looks upward -and inward and forward.</p> - -<p>The posterior zygapophyses are short and massive, but otherwise -correspond closely with the anterior zygapophyses, only with all -the parts reversed, and except that necessarily they are relatively -to the neural canal a little higher.</p> - -<p>A sharp and well defined angular ridge, commencing at the back -of the zygapophysis, is directed inward, and forward, and upward -along the posterior margin of the neural arch to the top of the -neural spine. The posterior aspect of the neural arch is concave -from side to side, and makes a right angle with the superior lateral -aspect.</p> - -<p>The part of the centrum exposed behind the neural arch is -convex above from side to side.</p> - -<p>The pneumatic foramen between the centrum and the neural -arch varies greatly in size; it is oval and longitudinal.</p> - -<p>The largest specimens have the centrum 2<sup>1</sup>/<sub>2</sub> inches long; in the -smallest the centrum measures <sup>5</sup>/<sub>8</sub>ths of an inch in length.</p> - -<p>In the second type of cervical vertebra the side of the centrum -makes a right angle with the base, and is separated from it by a -sharp angle as in struthious birds. The side of the centrum is concave, -with a few small pneumatic perforations; and the side of the -centrum, which is high posteriorly, rounds over the oblique ridge -connecting the zygapophyses, into the oblique lateral face of the -neural arch. The anterior zygapophyses are very large and the -posterior zygapophyses small and placed as high as the top of the -neural canal.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_69" id="Page_69">« 69 »</a></span></p> - -<p>Every region of the vertebral column displays pneumatic foramina, -situated as in the vertebræ of birds.</p> - -<p>The large proportional size of the neck-vertebræ is common to -some birds, and is conspicuous in many mammals, like the Llama. In -most mammals where the vertebræ have a cup-and-ball articulation, -the ball is in front, as it is in the dorsal vertebræ of the penguin, so -that those vertebræ are not comparable with Pterodactyles, although -on the under side of the centrum they similarly give off a mesial -process below the cup, and a lateral process below the ball on each -side. The neural spine in Pterodactyle is commonly more developed -than is the case with long-necked birds or mammals. Reptiles -such as Crocodiles and Lizards have the neural spines of the -neck-vertebræ well developed. Birds differ from Pterodactyles in -the peculiar articulation of their vertebræ. In both the centrum -is often depressed, in both it is concave from side to side in front, -and convex from side to side behind, but in birds it is also convex -from above downward in front, and concave from above downward -behind, while the reverse arrangement obtains in Pterodactyles. A -similar condition to that of the bird is seen in the neck-vertebræ -of the Kangaroo, of Man, and several mammals, only the vertical -curves are less marked. Vertebræ concave in front, and convex -behind, and devoid of cervical ribs, are met with among the Lizards, -but neither Monitor nor Iguana offer any parallel to the form of -the cervical vertebræ of Pterodactyle, which is best matched among -Marsupials and Birds. Birds commonly have more vertebræ in the -neck than have Pterodactyles, which in that respect resemble mammals -and some Lizards.</p> - - -<div class="fig_left"> -<table summary="location"> -<tr> - <td class="smaller">Case.</td> - <td class="smaller">Comp.</td> - <td class="smaller">Tablet.</td> - <td class="smaller">Specimen.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="smaller"><b>J</b></td> - <td class="smaller"><i>c</i></td> - <td class="smaller">3</td> - <td class="smaller">1—20</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td colspan="4"> </td> -</tr> -</table> -</div> - -<div class="div_center"> -<span class="smcap">Dorsal Vertebræ.</span><br /> -<br /> -<a href="#p_x">Pl. 10.</a> -</div> - -<p>Twenty specimens are mounted to exemplify pectoral and -dorsal vertebræ. Like the cervical vertebræ, they include -two types of form, one with the centrum flat, figured in pl. 2. fig. -20-22 of the memoir on Pterodactylus Sedgwicki, and regarded -by Prof Owen as anterior dorsal; and the other form -with a convex centrum, figured 24-25 of the same plate of -the same memoir, regarded by Prof. Owen as posterior dorsal. -Following the analogy of birds such determination is as well -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_70" id="Page_70">« 70 »</a></span> -supported as the similar reference of the two types of cervical -vertebræ to anterior and posterior parts of the neck, but fuller -materials compel a reference of the two types of dorsal vertebræ -to two different genera.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>Nos. 1, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, 15, 19 belong to the flat type. -Nos. 2, 4, 5, 11, 12, 16, 17, 18 exemplify the convex type.</p></div> - -<p>Dorsal vertebræ are rare fossils; and in the associated sets -of bones never more than four dorsal vertebræ are found, rarely -more than one. No specimen of the type with a convex centrum -occurs in the associated sets.</p> - -<p>The dorsal vertebræ with convex centra have all lost their -neural arches except No. 2. The form of the centrum is -half a cylinder, as long, or longer than wide, but sometimes -depressed, and wider behind than in front. The exterior surface -is smooth, convex from side to side, and slightly concave from -front to back. The neural surface is mesially excavated. Both -anterior and posterior articular surfaces are semicircular or -sub-ovate, being wide from side to side.</p> - -<p>The anterior articulation is cupped, concave from the neural -to the hæmal surface, and concave from side to side. The posterior -articulation is convex from the neural to the hæmal surface, -in which direction, it usually shows striations, and from side to -side has a gentle convexity, sometimes so slight as to be nearly -flat.</p> - -<p>The neural canal is large, ovate, and as high as is the centrum.</p> - -<p>The neural arch is strong, compressed from back to front, and -placed as usual on the anterior part of the centrum. In outline -it is sub-rhomboid with the sides concave. There is a strong process -on each side above the neural canal for a rib, and apparently -a neural spine, but all are broken. The transverse processes for -the ribs are directed outward, and a little forward, flattened in -front and behind, the surfaces being sub-parallel, so that in front -the neural arch is concave from side to side. Behind, the neural -spine is directed between the transverse processes so as to over-hang -the exposed part of the superior surface of the centrum. At -the points where the neural spine bends back from the transverse -processes are the posterior zygapophyses, high above the neural -canal, and parted from each other by an interspace as wide as the -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_71" id="Page_71">« 71 »</a></span> -canal is high. They look downward, outward, and backward. -The lateral surface below the transverse process is narrow, flattened, -bends at a right angle with the posterior surface, rounds into -the anterior surface, is a continuous curve with the side of the -centrum, and is concave from below upward. The superior -surfaces of the neural arch have the sides sub-parallel, they are -each concave from side to side; and these surfaces are excavated -for pneumatic foramina.</p> - -<p>Dorsal vertebræ of the type with the centrum flattened closely -resemble cervical vertebræ with the centrum flattened, differing -chiefly in the less length of the centrum. Occasionally (as in -No. 3) the neural arch comes away from the body of the vertebra.</p> - -<p>The centrum is very depressed, sub-quadrate, and wider than -long; the base is flat, or slightly concave, with occasionally a slight -longitudinal mesial ridge; the lateral outlines are concave, so that -the bone is pinched in from side to side. The neural surface of -the centrum is flat and parallel with the base, and, as usual, wider -behind than in front, but the centrum is not there so high. The -surfaces for the neural arch are flat, and extend nearly to the -base of the centrum in front, so that they look upward, outward -and a little forward.</p> - -<p>The articular ends are remarkable for their depressed oblong -character, still preserving the anterior concavity with a small -mesial process below, as in cervical vertebræ, and similar but -smaller processes at the inferior outer angles of the posterior -sub-semicylindrical convexity. The middle third of the anterior -cup is made by the trapezoidal anterior end of the centrum; -sometimes the sutures between it and the neural arch are well -marked.</p> - -<p>The neural arch is large, commonly with a sub-circular neural -canal. The neural spine is high, compressed so as to have the -lateral surfaces sub-parallel and rounding into each other superiorly; -and it has a less antero-posterior extent than the centrum. At -its base behind it widens rapidly, and forms massive quadrate -processes, extending outward and backward, which on the outside -each have a flattened ovate zygapophysial facet, which also looks -downward. Above the facet and separated from it by a groove is -a tubercle. Between the zygapophyses behind the bone is concave -from side to side; the facets are placed above the neural canal.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_72" id="Page_72">« 72 »</a></span></p> - -<p>The posterior zygapophyses are placed considerably higher -than the anterior zygapophyses, and the part of the neural arch -between is rather constricted from front to back. 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 -downward. A ridge commencing at the tubercle over the posterior -zygapophysial facet descends in a curve forward and downward, -to form the posterior border of the anterior zygapophysial -process. This is separated by a groove from the anterior articular -surface, and anterior part of the base of the centrum, and has the -aspect of a compressed part of the neural arch, extending obliquely -downward, and forward, over and beyond the articular surface of -the centrum. The anterior zygapophysial facets are oblong, -narrow from side to side, and long from front to back; they are -directed forward and a little outward, and are flattened, make -nearly a right angle behind with the front of the neural arch, -and look upward and inward. They are sometimes placed as high -as the top of the neural canal, but are commonly lower. Around -the neural canal the bone is conically impressed.</p> - -<p>Minute pneumatic foramina are in the usual position, between -the centrum and the neural arch; and sometimes others behind -the anterior zygapophysial process.</p> - -<p>The largest specimen known has the centrum nearly an inch -and a half long.</p> - -<p>The dorsal vertebræ in Cambridge specimens would appear to -make a nearer approximation in number to birds than to Mammals -or Lizards or Crocodiles, though Chelonians have few vertebræ in -the back. Among Reptiles the form of the vertebra makes some -approach to that of the Monitor, Chameleon and Scink. In most -Mammals the dorsal vertebræ have the centrum convex, though in -the lumbar region its visceral surface often becomes flattened. But -though very unlike there is a nearer resemblance to the lower -dorsal vertebræ of a Struthious bird.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_73" id="Page_73">« 73 »</a></span></p> - - -<div class="fig_left"> -<table summary="location"> -<tr> - <td class="smaller">Case.</td> - <td class="smaller">Comp.</td> - <td class="smaller">Tablet.</td> - <td class="smaller">Specimen.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="smaller"><b>J</b></td> - <td class="smaller"><i>c</i></td> - <td class="smaller">4</td> - <td class="smaller">1—7</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td colspan="4"> </td> -</tr> -</table> -</div> - -<div class="div_center"> -<span class="smcap">Sacrum.</span><br /> -<br /> -<a href="#p_x">Pl. 10.</a></div> - -<p>Seven specimens are mounted to exemplify the ordinary -structures of the Ornithosaurian sacrum.</p> - -<p>Nos. 1 and 2 have the centrum convex, exactly as in the dorsal -vertebræ of the convex type. Nos. 3-7 have the centrum flattened, -following in general features the plan of the dorsal vertebræ -with flat centra.</p> - -<p>No. 1 is a vertebra from a sacrum, where perfect anchylosis -had not been induced; it has the neural arch well preserved, and -shows the sharp suture which united it to the preceding vertebra.</p> - -<p>No. 2 shows two entire vertebræ and part of a third, which -have lost the neural arches but have the centra perfectly anchylosed -together. The middle vertebra measures <sup>5</sup>/<sub>8</sub> of an inch in -length, and at the suture from side to side measures more. The -surface is smooth, regularly convex from side to side, and gently -concave from back to front. The last vertebra shows the articular -vertebral surface; it is convex in both directions, and oblique, -so that a large part looks upward. The anterior of the three -vertebræ is pinched in at the lower part of the sides of the -centrum. No. 1 shows that the neural surface of the centrum -is deeply excavated, making the neural canal an elongated upright -oval. Above the centrum, which forms only the middle third -of the articular surface, the neural arch expands on each side -into a wedge-shaped transverse process, the lower surfaces are -flattened, and continuous with the centrum, while the upper -surfaces are flat and horizontal as in birds and Dinosaurs, and -form the platform from which arises the massive neural spine.</p> - -<p>In front the transverse wedge is flattened and compressed, -so as to look forward and outward, and in the middle shows a -large ovate pneumatic foramen. Behind, the wedge is compressed -so as to look backward and downward.</p> - -<p>The neural spine is massive and forms rather more than half -the height of the vertebra. It is flattened with a ridge rising -near its base in front and ascending in a concave curve obliquely -backward and upward. The anterior parts approximate a little -in front, while the small parts posterior to the ridge approximate -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_74" id="Page_74">« 74 »</a></span> -a little behind. The sides of the neural spine approximate -superiorly, and appear to round into each other.</p> - -<p>There is a notch on each side in front at the base of the -neural spine, and another above the central articulation. The -neural spines appear to have been united by suture. It may be -instructive to compare the neural spine just described with -the specimens <b>J</b>. <i>c</i>. 10.</p> - -<p>Of the second type or genus No. 4 to 7 all show the anterior -cup for the last lumbar vertebra. No. 3, 5 and 6 all show two -entire vertebræ and part of a third preserved, but no specimen -shows the posterior termination of the sacrum. No. 7 has the -articular face of the centrum very broad, and greatly depressed. In -No. 6 it is ovate and has the neural arch preserved; above a semicircular -neural canal it sends out on each side a short horn-like -zygapophysial process. No. 4 is remarkable for the small -size of the circular neural canal, the centrum when entire -measuring an inch from side to side, while the neural canal -only measures <sup>5</sup>/<sub>16</sub> of an inch. No. 5 is figured by Prof. Owen. -No. 4-6 appear to have given off transverse processes from -the sides of the centra. No. 7 appears to widen into transverse -processes at the point of suture between the centra.</p> - -<p>In No. 3 the base of the sacrum is flattened, and its sides -pinched in, and concave in outline from back to front. In -this hollow are small pneumatic foramina, and between the -hollows the vertebræ widen in the line of the suture so as -to send out strong short transverse processes or tubercles. -Above the hollows are given out the strong horizontal quadrate -pyramidal transverse processes. All their sides are flattened -or a little concave, and the under side displays a large ovate -pneumatic foramen. Each of the four angles of the transverse -process gives off a ridge. The lower ones descend obliquely -to the anterior and posterior intersutural tubercles. The upper -two ascend obliquely, in front and behind, and form rounded -ridges on the neural spine. The neural spine is flattened, -moderately compressed from side to side, and cupped a little -over each transverse process. In front the neural spine is -flattened transversely and perpendicular; the transverse processes -are also flattened and a little in advance of the neural spine.</p> - -<p>The sacrum in its general aspect is Mammalian. In the Bird -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_75" id="Page_75">« 75 »</a></span> -the vertebræ are much more numerous and do not retain their individuality -so well. In Reptiles properly so called, the sacrum -never includes more than two or three vertebræ, and those commonly -remain unanchylosed. But in almost any placental Mammal -in which several vertebræ are anchylosed together, a sacrum -similar to that of the Pterodactyle is met with. No mammalian -sacrum, however, is furnished with pneumatic foramina.</p> - - -<div class="fig_left"> -<table summary="location"> -<tr> - <td class="smaller">Case.</td> - <td class="smaller">Comp.</td> - <td class="smaller">Tablet.</td> - <td class="smaller">Specimen.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="smaller"><b>J</b></td> - <td class="smaller"><i>c</i></td> - <td class="smaller">5</td> - <td class="smaller">1—13</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td colspan="4"> </td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td colspan="4"> </td> -</tr> -</table> -</div> - -<div class="div_center"> -<span class="smcap">Caudal Vertebræ.</span><br /> -<br /> -<a href="#p_x">Pl. 10.</a> -</div> - -<p>Thirteen specimens are mounted to exemplify the osteology of -caudal vertebræ. No. 7 has been figured by Prof. Owen in the -memoir on Pterodactylus simus, pl. 2 fig. 13-16. The centrum -of the largest specimens measures one inch and a quarter -long, and the vertebra is half an inch wide from side to side -in the middle. The smallest specimen No. 13 has the centrum -<sup>3</sup>/<sub>4</sub> of an inch long. The vertebræ vary in proportions, some -being much more slender than others. They present a close -approximation in form to the first type of cervical vertebræ, -differing chiefly in being more elongated.</p> - -<p>They are elongated bones constricted in the middle, so that -the outlines of the sides seen from above or below are gently -concave; the outline of the anterior end is sub-rhomboid, the -outline of the posterior end is sub-pentagonal, as would be -a transverse section of the vertebra. The long outlines of the base -of the centrum and of the top of the neural arch are sub-parallel.</p> - -<p>The two sides of the upper surface of the neural arch are -smooth, flattened, a little concave from back to front; they are -inclined to each other pent-house wise at about a right angle, -and are separated throughout their length by a narrow slightly -elevated neural spine. Behind, the neural arch is truncated -transversely so as to expose the posterior neural surface of the -centrum, which is convex from side to side. The outermost -lateral angles of the neural arch are the posterior zygapophysial -processes, short and strong above the centrum, with a tubercle -on the upper surface, and showing the sub-circular zygapophysial -facets behind; they look backward and downward, and -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_76" id="Page_76">« 76 »</a></span> -are separated by a groove from the region of the centrum. Under -the sharp ridge which connects these zygapophyses behind, the -neural arch is excavated, and the cup shows the termination -of three canals. The largest one is the upright oval of the -neural canal in the middle, on each of its sides separated by -a narrow bony wall is another perforation, very variable in -size and shape, sometimes b& large as the neural canal, but -usually small and circular. The anterior end of the neural -arch is cut into, so that as seen from above, the straight sharp -anterior margins diverge mesially from each other at a right -angle, and so expose to view a small anterior part of the neural -surface of the centrum. These lines are prolonged forward -and outward, to form the upper margin of the anterior zygapophyses, -which are compressed and prolonged over and beyond -the sides of the anterior articulation, from which they are separated -by a slight groove; the anterior and posterior zygapophyses are -connected by a rounded ridge. The anterior end of the neural -arch is excavated, but less so than the posterior end; in the -middle is the oval perforation of the neural canal, and at the -sides other perforations corresponding to those behind are -placed a little in advance of the neural canal. The anterior -and posterior articular surfaces differ in no respect from those -of cervical vertebræ.</p> - -<p>The inferior surface of the centrum is separated from the -sides by two ridges parallel to the lateral concave outlines of -the neural arch; they extend from sides of the front, more -or less well marked, to the tubercular processes at the base -of the sides of the centrum behind. The dice-box shaped area -of the centrum so inscribed is usually concave from front to -back, and concave from side to side behind, and convex from -side to side in the middle; this convexity is only broken in -front by the development of the slight mesial hypapophysial -ridge.</p> - -<p>The sides are narrow, flattened, look downward and outward, -are a little concave from front to back, round into the centrum -and into the neural arch, and show at about the middle a -small pneumatic foramen, which is variable in size, but largest -in No. 8, and sometimes a mere puncture.</p> - -<p>The caudal vertebræ differ in many ways from other animals. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_77" id="Page_77">« 77 »</a></span> -They have neither transverse processes, neural spines, hypapophyses -or hæmapophyses. In the persistence of the neural arch down the -tail they resemble reptiles and birds rather than mammals, in which -nothing but the centrum persists to the end of the tail. The vertebræ -are furnished with vertebral arteries which run through the -neural arch parallel to the neural canal, in exactly the same position -as do the vertebral arteries in the neck-vertebræ of the Llama.</p> - - - - -<h2><a name="THE_BONES_OF_THE_HEAD" id="THE_BONES_OF_THE_HEAD">THE BONES OF THE HEAD.</a></h2> - -<p class="center">Pl. <a href="#p_xi">11</a>, <a href="#p_xii">12</a>.</p> - -<p>The skull of Dimorphodon differs in form and in many important -details of structure from that of Rhamphorhynchus; and -both of these types of skull are strikingly unlike that of the short-tailed -animals named Pterodactyle. Hence, as it will be shown -that the Cretaceous fossils of this class belong to very distinct new -genera, there is no reason for assigning to them by anticipation -any class of cranial structures. The cranium of this type of animal -has never been critically described, and for all that is yet known -to the contrary Pterodactyles may differ between themselves as -much as birds or mammals. Their affinities have been unknown. -Therefore, before describing bones it may be desirable to state the -grounds on which the several specimens are referred to the Ornithosauria. -The fossils on which this section of the memoir is -founded are, the basi-occipital and basi-temporal bones, the anterior -portion of a cranium, the back parts of four crania, facial -bones, and the quadrate and quadrato-jugal.</p> - -<p>The crania are all no larger than that of the Heron; though -from the Greensand are bones and jaws indicating Pterodactyles -both smaller and larger. The skulls are mostly remarkable for -wanting both basi-occipital and basi-temporal bones. And the -specimen of basi-temporal and basi-occipital corresponds posteriorly -with the Pterodactyle atlas, anteriorly with these crania; it -is hence concluded to have belonged to a similar animal. Being -relatively twice as large, it indicates that in these animals the -basi-occipital condyle was proportionally larger than in known -birds; and that animals of a cognate kind had skulls probably -twice the size of these. The anterior basal part of the hinder -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_78" id="Page_78">« 78 »</a></span> -sphenoid terminates in a remarkable triangular surface, with two -perforations, which are separated by a median ridge. Almost -entirely corresponding with this is the basal surface of the anterior -part of a cranium, fractured in front of the pituitary fossa. -Therefore, and as it indicates a similar capacity of brain, it is -regarded as belonging to the same kind of animal as the others ; -but being five times the size, it must, if the proportions of the -Heron were preserved, have been part of a head a yard long.</p> - -<p>Now, as there is no other animal with the same texture of -bone, or exhibiting with high organization the same diversity of -size, these cranial fragments are referred to the jaws and bones of -Pterodactyle. 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 anatomist.</p> - - -<div class="fig_left"> -<table summary="location"> -<tr> - <td class="smaller">Case.</td> - <td class="smaller">Comp.</td> - <td class="smaller">Tablet.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="smaller"><b>J</b></td> - <td class="smaller"><i>c</i></td> - <td class="smaller">7</td> -</tr> -</table> -</div> - -<div class="div_center"> -<span class="smcap">Basi-occipital and Basi-temporal.</span><br /> -<br /> -<a href="#p_xi">Pl. 11.</a> -</div> - -<p class="center">Basi-occipital, Owen, <i>Sup. Cret. Rep.</i> p. 6, T. 1, figs. 11, 12, 13.</p> - -<p>This bone was not found associated with any set of fossils that -would induce us to refer it to one species more than to another. -Its Ornithosaurian character was probable; and Prof. Owen described -it in his last memoir on the Greensand Pterodactyles.</p> - -<p>But though indubitably basi-occipital, it is so anomalous in -some respects that the Professor regarded the under as the upper -surface; since then the investing phosphate of lime has been -removed, and the bone is now described in what appears to be -its natural position.</p> - -<p>Viewed from above the fossil divides into two parts; the -occipital condyle, and an anterior, wide, transversely oblong extension -terminating at each side in a strong short horn. The -posterior half of the condyle shows large cancelli as though so -much of it had been covered by the articular cartilage. The -sides of the condyle converge, so that posteriorly it is only two-thirds -of the width it has at the foramen magnum, which would -appear to indicate a comparatively slight lateral motion of the -head. The condyle is hemispherical posteriorly and superiorly; -there is a depression between it and the great foramen of the -skull; inferiorly it is flat.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_79" id="Page_79">« 79 »</a></span></p> - -<p>It is <sup>7</sup>/<sub>16</sub> of an inch long; posteriorly <sup>9</sup>/<sub>16</sub> wide, nearly <sup>6</sup>/<sub>16</sub> of -an inch high anteriorly. It terminates in front superiorly in -an elevated transverse ridge.</p> - -<p>On removing the matrix, the anterior surface of this occipital -bone was found to be concave; yet as nothing but cancellous -structure is seen it may be but imperfectly ossified or more probably, -imperfectly preserved. And the bottom of this cup expands -forward in a thin sheet of bone a quarter of an inch long -and half an inch wide, which on the under side is continuous -with the base of the condyle.</p> - -<p>On each side of this floor and partly extending in front of -it, and below it, is an irregular piece of bone, half an inch -long, resembling anterior zygapophyses of cervical vertebræ.</p> - -<p>Though in most vertebrates the basi-occipital enters into the -basal floor of the skull, the median bones are either so placed -that they rest one upon another from before backwards or abut -against one another nearly perpendicular, so that the basi-sphenoid -comes commonly to underlap and partly hide the basi-occipital. -Nowhere among Amphibia or Reptilia do I know -of the reverse position occurring. In some fishes there is an -approach to it. Thus a slight anterior bony expansion of the -basi-occipital in the Cod fits partly into a horizontal slit in the -basi-sphenoid[A]. In the Carp the basi-occipital has a spathulate -basal expansion like that of Pterodactyle, but it is underlapped -by the basi-sphenoid<a name="FNanchor_19" id="FNanchor_19"></a><a href="#Footnote_19" class="fnanchor">[S]</a>. In some mammals the under side of the -basi-occipital extends further forward than does the neural side, -as for example in the Sheep and Goat; while in a few others, as -in the Walrus, the reverse positions obtain.</p> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_19" id="Footnote_19"></a><a href="#FNanchor_19"><span class="label">[S]</span></a> Parasphenoid of Prof. Huxley.</p></div> - -<p>But it is among Birds that the structure described in Pterodactyle -is evident and characteristic. For although the bony -plate under the sphenoid,—Mr Parker's basi-temporals,—is mostly -anchylosed to the bones about it, and less with the occipital -than with others, its position and relations are quite the same -as those of the expanded flap of this Pterodactyle basi-occipital. -Therefore it is identified with the basi-temporal bones.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_80" id="Page_80">« 80 »</a></span></p> - - -<div class="fig_left"> -<table summary="location"> -<tr> - <td class="smaller">Case.</td> - <td class="smaller">Comp.</td> - <td class="smaller">Tablet.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="smaller"><b>J</b></td> - <td class="smaller"><i>c</i></td> - <td class="smaller">8</td> - <td class="smaller">1</td> -</tr> -</table> -</div> - -<div class="div_center"> -<span class="smcap">Back of the Cranium.</span><br /> -<br /> -<a href="#p_xi">Pl. 11.</a> -</div> - -<p>This fossil is an inch high, rather wider, and half an inch -long. It well shows the bones at the back of the skull, the -basi-cranial bones, and the bones posterior to the frontals, which -roof in the Cranium. There are in it striking resemblances to -the back of the skull of some Natatores, as the Grannet and -Cormorant, and of some Grallatores as the Heron, and Gallinaceous -birds as the Cock.</p> - -<p><i>The base of the skull.</i> The bones here indicated are the basi-occipital, -basi-temporal, and basi-sphenoid. The former two have -come away as from an articular joint, and are wanting. The -basi-occipital does not enter into the floor of the cranial cavity, -and only rims the foramen magnum. But its basi-temporal expansion -rests beneath the posterior part of the basi-sphenoid forming -the base of the skull; its long convex anterior end fits into the -concave groove at the back of the anterior part of the sphenoid. -The squamous basi-temporal bone appears in this species to have -been as long as the foramen magnum is wide, and to have been -relatively thicker than in the other form already described.</p> - -<p>The <i>basi-sphenoid</i> is a thin expanded bone forming the floor -for the cerebellum, and terminating anteriorly in a triangular -mass, while the slightly convex part behind, covered with the -basi-temporals, is nearly square. It enters into the foramen magnum, -forming its lower part; and is confluent with the ex-occipitals -behind, with the periotic, alisphenoid and perhaps with the -squamosal at the side; and as in birds all these sutures are obliterated. -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 bone. The anterior -part of the basi-sphenoid projects below the posterior part, is -nearly flat on the basal surface, and forms an equilateral triangle -with the apex in front and base behind. In the middle of the -triangular bone is a slight longitudinal ridge, and behind the -middle of each outer side a rather large foramen which appears -to be the inferior opening for the carotid artery. The triangular -part is hollow and as long as the quadrate portion. The lateral -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_81" id="Page_81">« 81 »</a></span> -parts of this anterior bone are nearly flat. They converge upwards -and are rounded in front to form the boundary of the -pituitary fossa, and do not appear to have terminated in a spine. -Above are the alisphenoids.</p> - -<p><i>The upper part of the skull</i> is divided into two segments by -a strong straight transverse ridge, which leaves the occipital -bones behind, and the parietal &c. in front.</p> - -<p>The occipital bones anchylosed together are about two-thirds -the width of the foramen magnum, and of the parietal bones, with -which latter the supra-occipital makes an angle of 45°. The -surface is irregular, and especially is marked by a deep concavity -just above each ex-occipital. The supra-occipital projects slightly -over the plane of the foramen magnum, to which the strong ridge -bounding the segment in front is parallel. The great foramen -is nearly round, being slightly compressed at the upper part of -the sides: it measures <sup>3</sup>/<sub>8</sub> of an inch high and is nearly as wide.</p> - -<p>The <i>occipital bones</i> make with those at the base of the skull -an angle of about 145° or 150°. In outline they are a transverse -diamond shape. The mastoid portion is not to be distinguished -from the other bones, but appear to terminate the sides of the -strong occipital crest, which by posterior compression of the -squamosals and parietals, becomes very strong, and makes the -backward boundary of the temporal foss. This crest is in the -same plane with the anterior border of the basi-temporals.</p> - -<p>The <i>parietals</i> meet above in a slight ridge. They are two -rectangular bones twice as wide as long, forming a semicircular -roof for the brain, which looks outward and a little backward. -Anteriorly these bones unite with the frontals in a slightly -flexuous transverse line; and inferiorly they are connected with -the periotic, the squamosal, and perhaps with the anterior -point of the alisphenoid: they do not descend to the plane of -the articulations of the free quadrate bones. The surface is -smooth, and on the upper part flat, but concave below from side -to side.</p> - -<p>Below these parietals are the <i>squamosals</i> and <i>alisphenoids</i>, -but the suture between them is not seen. They are in form -a trapezium where the short side is anterior, and the lower -third is folded inward so as to be confluent with the anterior -part of the sphenoid. The fold forms a ridge, which I suppose -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_82" id="Page_82">« 82 »</a></span> -may run obliquely over the alisphenoid. The unfolded squamosal -part is a flat and smooth oblong, with parallel sides, the bones -are in parallel planes and nearly perpendicular to the base of -the skull. Where the alisphenoid joins the sphenoid, there is -a considerable concavity, above which is a small circular impression. -These strips approximate inferiorly, so that the width -of the skull there is rather more than half what it is at their -outer margins. They shut off the pituitary body in front of -them, and appear to form part of the wall for the orbit of -the eye.—The slightly convex, lateral, squamosal parts above the -fold continue the circular transverse outline of which the parietals -are the upper half. They extend anterior to the parietals, and -on the inside give attachment to the frontals. Like the parietals, -they make a sharp bend outward at their hinder border, and -form the lateral terminations of the occipital ridge, which is the -widest part of this fossil.</p> - -<p>The only portion of the specimen now to be described is the -large region at each side looking downward, which extends from -the occipital ridge to the sphenoid. It is an irregular pentangular -hollow with many cavities, the hinder of which are for the ear. -Two cavities above these, under the widest part of the skull, -appear to be a double articulation for the quadrate bone. The -outer transverse one with the squamosal is separated by a deep -groove from the inner and more vertical one, which may therefore -be regarded as with the petrosal bone. These excavations form -the posterior half of the pentagon. The anterior half is a smooth -rhombus not separable from the basi-sphenoid.</p> - -<p>Such is the external appearance of the occipital and parietal -segments of the skull of a Cambridge Pterodactyle. Each segment -forms a large ring of thin bone, inclosing part of a brain-cavity as -large as that of a bird and shaped like that of a bird; and which -moreover is made up of the same bones as the cranium of a bird; -and these are in almost exactly the same proportions as those of -the Common Cock.</p> - -<p>My own investigations do not substantiate Wagner's discovery, -that the back part of the skull resembles that of the Monitor. -Iguana would have offered a slightly nearer comparison, but they -both differ from Cambridge specimens of Pterodactyles in characters -like these.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_83" id="Page_83">« 83 »</a></span></p> - -<p>In the lizard,</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>The cranial bones do not enclose the brain.</p> - -<p>There is no division of the back of the skull into an occipital -segment and a parietal segment by a girdling crest.</p> - -<p>The squamosal bone does not enter into the cranial wall.</p> - -<p>The quadrate bone does not articulate with the wall of the -brain-case.</p> -</div> - -<p>While the peculiar backward development of wings of the parietal -in a diverging V form, give the Lizard skull an aspect of its own.</p> - -<p>So that it must be asserted that the differences of these Pterodactyles -from Lizards are so wide as to preclude comparison.</p> - -<p>With the Crocodile, in which the cranial bones are massive, and -the quadrate bone firmly packed in the skull, comparison would be -no less difficult.</p> - -<p>The Delphinidæ, in both the form of the jaws and of the back -of the head, give some support to Wagler's fancy, in putting the -Pterodactyle into his curious creation, the Gryphi<a name="FNanchor_20" id="FNanchor_20"></a><a href="#Footnote_20" class="fnanchor">[T]</a>. But in -the porpoises the parietal bones form as narrow a band as they -do in the Duck; and are quite unlike the bones here described. -In the Dolphin the two condyles almost unite into one semicircular -condyle (in young specimens), owing to the enormous development -of the ex-occipitals, which almost if not entirely exclude the basi-occipital -from the foramen magnum. The dolphin moreover has -no quadrate bone. But notwithstanding the absence of a division -into occipital and parietal segments, the form and arrangement of -the bones in the skull of the porpoises approximate more to the -Cambridge Pterodactyles than is the case with Lizards.</p> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_20" id="Footnote_20"></a><a href="#FNanchor_20"><span class="label">[T]</span></a> The Gryphi are a class of animals intermediate between Birds and Mammals -according to Wagler, and including Pterodactyles, Ichthyosaurus, Plesiosaurs, -Ornithorhynchus, and Myrmecophaga.</p></div> - -<p>But with Birds the correspondence is so close that it would be -difficult to discover differences. That one of the condition of the -occipital bone seems to be the most important; another is, that -from the relatively smaller size of the cerebellum the parietal bones -appear to cover a larger part of the cerebrum; and a third is the -strong triangular condition of the sphenoid in front of the sella tursica. -With these exceptions there is nothing to distinguish the -fossil described from the cranium of a bird.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_84" id="Page_84">« 84 »</a></span></p> - - -<div class="fig_left"> -<table summary="location"> -<tr> - <td class="smaller">Case.</td> - <td class="smaller">Comp.</td> - <td class="smaller">Tablet.</td> - <td class="smaller">Specimen.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="smaller"><b>J</b></td> - <td class="smaller"><i>c</i></td> - <td class="smaller">8</td> - <td class="smaller">2</td> -</tr> -</table> -</div> - -<div class="div_center"> -<span class="smcap">Back of another Cranium.</span><br /> -<br /> -<a href="#p_xi">Pl. 11. fig. 1, 2.</a> -</div> - -<p>Another cranium has occurred which must be referred to a different -genus. Its preservation is less perfect, but it similarly exhibits -the occipital and parietal segments of the skull. All the -bones are blended together without a trace of a suture.</p> - -<p>The <i>occipital region</i> is flat. Its outline is not defined owing to -the extent to which the sharp crest, in which it terminated outwardly, -has been broken away. The occipital condyle is broken off. -The foramen magnum is of an ovate form—flattened at the base. -The ex-occipitals at its sides are impressed as though from contact -with the neurapophyses of the atlas. Mesially, over the foramen -magnum is a vertical elevated crest (now rubbed away), which may -have given attachment to a bone like that post-superoccipital crest -described by Quenstedt in the <i>Pterodactylus suevicus</i>. The occipital -region makes a great angle with the flat basi-temporal region, -as in birds.</p> - -<p>The <i>parietal region</i> is convex from below upward, the lateral -parts converging towards the crown, which however presents a -broken and worn surface. From side to side the squamosal -and parietal bones are concave, owing to the extended occipital -crest behind, and the rapid widening of the skull in front -caused by the large size of the brain.</p> - -<p>In <i>front</i> is seen a section of the brain-cavity. It is very -like in form to the two halves of a pear put together side by -side with the stalk downward. I have removed some of the -phosphate of lime from the brain-cavity, and although it has -not been excavated to the cerebellum, the great depth of the -brain is well seen, and the convex character of the cerebral -lobes, between which a crest of bone descends mesially as in -the ethmo-sphenoid mass next described. At each of the -lower outer angles of the brain, extending into the cancellous -brain-walls to the outermost film, is an ovoid convexity, covered -with a thin film of bone. They entirely correspond with the -optic lobes, being in exactly the same position as in birds, only -relatively rather small. Underneath the optic lobe on the outside -is a small concavity, apparently the articulation for the quadrate -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_85" id="Page_85">« 85 »</a></span> -bone. The basi-sphenoid mass below the brain is of considerable -height, the upper half flat and smooth, the lower half fractured -and cancellous.</p> - -<p>In the main this skull is like the other one, differing chiefly in -the depth of the sphenoid, in the mesial ridge between the cerebral -lobes, in showing the optic lobes, and in having anchylosed basi-temporal -bones. There would hence appear to have been considerable -variations in the skulls of Pterodactyles even in the Cambridge -Greensand.</p> - - -<div class="fig_left"> -<table summary="location"> -<tr> - <td class="smaller">Case.</td> - <td class="smaller">Comp.</td> - <td class="smaller">Tablet.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="smaller"><b>J</b></td> - <td class="smaller"><i>c</i></td> - <td class="smaller">9</td> -</tr> -</table> -</div> - -<div class="div_center"> -<span class="smcap">Orbito-ethmo-sphenoid bone.</span><br /> -<br /> -<a href="#p_xi">Pl. 11.</a> -</div> - -<p>The symmetrical bone which I have so named is a wedge-like -mass tapering in front, keeled above; flattened below, and cupped -behind on each side. It belonged to a very much larger animal -than the last fossil, and probably to a very different genus.</p> - -<p>The <i>inferior surface</i> is triangular, an inch and an eighth wide -behind, at the base, and an inch and a quarter long; but it is -broken at both ends. In its longitudinal median line is a strong -keel stopping short in front, dying away behind, and forming -with the compressed margins a considerable hollow on each -side, at the back part of which is a large oval foramen. This -surface, though five times the size, corresponds in form, ridges, -and foramina with the anterior part of the sphenoid described -in the article on the back of the cranium.</p> - -<p>The <i>posterior surface</i> is at right angles to the inferior one, -but its lower third shows only fractured phosphate of lime -filling perhaps the anterior part of the pituitary fossa. Its -upper part also is broken. But on each side is a large concavity -measuring in the fractured fossil an inch and a quarter high, -three quarters of an inch wide, and half an inch deep from the -unbroken median ridge where the cups become confluent at their -base. The whole specimen is two and a quarter inches high. -From the determination of the under side it follows that these -smooth hollows, over each of which an impressed mesial line descends -obliquely outward, are a part of the anterior boundary of the brain.</p> - -<p>From the middle of the outer convex border of the oval -remains of these cups for the cerebral hemispheres, a strong -blunt ridge descends obliquely down the sides of the bone to -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_86" id="Page_86">« 86 »</a></span> -terminate the compressed anterior end of the bone just in front -of the hypapophysial ridge of the sphenoid. Above this ridge -the bone is much compressed anteriorly, forming a strong straight -mesial keel above, which rapidly approximates to the base; the -height of the bone in front being one inch and a half, which is -also its extreme length.</p> - -<p>The region below the oblique ridge is a concavity, but it is a -little compressed from side to side behind, and has the same anterior -compression, so that the elongated oval of the fracture at -the anterior end of the bone is only three-eighths of an inch wide.</p> - -<p>The superior ridge will probably have supported the frontals, -and the anterior end would terminate in the orbito-sphenoid.</p> - -<p>The lateral ridges appear to correspond with what Prof. -Huxley has described in the Ostrich as the ridge indicative of -a supra-presphenoid ossification pointed out by Kölliker. The -groove which is here noticed on the cerebral surface may indicate -the same division. If so, the upper and anterior part of the -mass would be the ethmoid.</p> - -<p>This mass offers a considerable resemblance to the frontal portion -of the skull of a dolphin (<i>e. g.</i> Delphinus delphis) from which -the maxillary, premaxillary, palatine and nasal bones have been -removed. But in the Porpoise the mesial ridge dividing the cerebral -hemispheres is not prolonged so far forward as in the Pterodactyle; -the cranial bones are often as smooth on the inside. Notwithstanding -Wagner's assurance that the Pterodactyle skull is very -like a Monitor's, he would have looked in vain for an ossification -in Monitor, Iguana, or other Lizards, comparable with this mass. -And although the brain is closed in front by bones in Serpents, -it is by the frontal bones, which form a covering for nearly -the whole of the conical cerebrum. Nor in the Crocodile is -there any ossified mass in front of the brain, although the -brain approximates nearer to Birds than is the case with other -living Reptiles. Among Birds such a structure as that of the -Pterodactyle is characteristic, but no bird has it so massive and -mammal-like, though an approximation is made in some thick-skulled -birds like <i>Ciconia marabou</i>. And in birds it usually -is prolonged much further forward than appears to have been -the case with Pterodactyle, where from the rapid tapering of -the mass in front it appears to have ended in a vertical ridge -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_87" id="Page_87">« 87 »</a></span> -like that in Parrots and Birds with a moveable beak. In -Birds there is usually a median ridge dividing the cerebral -hemispheres, but there is also often a small olfactory lobe prolonged -in front of the cerebrum, to which nothing analogous is -indicated in these fossils.</p> - - -<hr class="chap" /> - -<h2><a name="NATURAL_MOULD" id="NATURAL_MOULD"></a>NATURAL MOULD OF THE BRAIN CAVITY OF -A CAMBRIDGE ORNITHOSAURIAN<a name="FNanchor_21" id="FNanchor_21"></a><a href="#Footnote_21" class="fnanchor">[U]</a>. (Cast.)</h2> - -<p class="center"><a href="#p_xi">Pl. 11.</a></p> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_21" id="Footnote_21"></a><a href="#FNanchor_21"><span class="label">[U]</span></a> For the opportunity of making this description, I am indebted to the -kindness of John Francis Walker, Esq., M.A., F.G.S., F.C.S., &c., who some -time since forwarded to me the whole of his rarer Ornithosaurian remains for -description in the Geological Magazine,</p></div> - -<p>The original specimen is in the collection of J. F. Walker, Esq., -of Sidney Sussex College. When found it only displayed the -front of the cerebral hemispheres, and Mr. Walker generously -gave me permission to remove the investing cancellous bone and -phosphate of lime, and thus exhibit the form of the cerebrum -and its relations to the cerebellum. The lower part of the -brain is not preserved. But adherent to the sides of the fossil -are still left parts of the temporal bones, and part of the bone -at the back of the orbit which closes in the brain. The form -of the cerebellum is not quite perfect behind, but it must have been -unusually small.</p> - -<p>The cerebral lobes taken together are much wider from side to -side than from back to front, and have a transverse elliptical -outline, except for the mesial notch behind for the cerebellum. -The lobes are a little flattened above, and divided from each -other by a deep mesial groove, which makes each lobe convex -from side to side. They are well rounded at the front and at -the sides, and are a little compressed towards each other below -in the region of the orbits. Behind they become covered superiorly -as in birds with a greatly thickened part of the squamosal -and parietal bones. The surface of the cerebrum is smooth. There -is no indication of a pineal gland. The cerebellum is small, like -a pea between two filberts. It is sub-hemisphercal, is placed -close against the cerebrum, and appears to give off narrow lateral -parts, like those seen in many birds, only that they abut against -the back of the cerebral lobes as in the Hare and some Mammals. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_88" id="Page_88">« 88 »</a></span> -In no reptile is there a brain in which the cerebrum embraces the -front of the cerebellum, or in which it attains to such an enormous -size. Fœtal Mammals (<i>e. g.</i> the horse and the sheep), even when they -have attained to a considerable bulk, and many adult mammals, -still have the optic lobes dividing the cerebrum from the cerebellum -as in Reptiles.</p> - -<p>The only Mammal which shows any near approximation to this -brain is the <i>Ornithorhynchus</i>, in which the cerebellum is very small, -but the cerebrum is not so well rounded in front. The form approximates -to the brain in Man. 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 ones. A section of the cerebrum in this specimen entirely -corresponds with a section of the brain-cavity in the second skull -described, as does the backward extension of the cerebrum with -the extent of the cerebral cavity, and the narrow cerebellum with -the narrow channel parallel to the walls of the foramen magnum, -as in <i>Gallus domesticus</i> and Birds. The front of the brain corresponds -with the cast of the front of the cerebral lobes taken -from the Ethmo-sphenoid mass. Thus the specimens agree among -themselves, and prove the Pterodactyle to have had a brain indistinguishable -from that of a Bird. And when it is remembered -how distinctive this kind of brain is, and that it approximates -rather towards the higher Mammals than towards Reptiles, the -fact attains unusual importance in determining the Pterodactyle's -place in nature.</p> - - - - -<p class="caption2">?NEURAL ARCH OF SACRAL VERTEBRA, ?VOMER.</p> - -<p class="center">Pl. 12.</p> - -<div class="fig_left"> -<table summary="location"> -<tr> - <td class="smaller">Case.</td> - <td class="smaller">Comp.</td> - <td class="smaller">Tablet.</td> - <td class="smaller">Specimen.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="smaller"><b>J</b></td> - <td class="smaller"><i>c</i></td> - <td class="smaller">10</td> - <td class="smaller">1—3</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td colspan="4"> </td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td colspan="4"> </td> -</tr> -</table> -</div> - -<div class="div_center"> -<span class="smcap">Frontal(?) Owen.</span> <i>Palæontographical</i>, 1859<br /> -<br /> -<a href="#p_iv">Pl. 4, fig. 6, 7, 8.</a> -</div> - -<p>In 1859 Prof. Owen described with doubt as the Frontal -of Pterodactyle, a symmetrical bone. A smaller but more perfect -specimen has since been obtained for the Woodwardian -Museum; and a fragment of intermediate size is in the rich -collection of the Rev. T. G. Bonney. From the descriptions -already given it is impossible for it to be the frontal. There -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_89" id="Page_89">« 89 »</a></span> -is no proof that it is a skull bone. If of Pterodactyle the -compressed lateral spaces could only be part of the nasal passages, -or the impressions of a palatine or pterygoid articulation. -And as the external surface of every specimen is keeled, and -as the palatal surface of the upper jaw of every known Greensand -Pterodactyle is keeled, and as the concavities slightly converge -to the keel, it might be a bone from the under side of the -head,—the vomer.</p> - -<p>The smallest specimen is a compressed sub-semicircular bone -1<sup>1</sup>/<sub>4</sub> inch long, <sup>9</sup>/<sub>16</sub> inch high, and a <sup>1</sup>/<sub>4</sub> inch thick. The under surfaces -converge to form a strong keel, which is flattened off behind. -Above this, the posterior third of the bone is compressed -obliquely to half the thickness, as though a bone had over-lapped -this area on each side. If the oval spaces are nares, that -bone might have been the pterygoid or palatine. Three-fifths -of the remainder of the bone are taken up by the smooth oval -depressions, which might be the inner walls of the nares; and above -this is a margin of bone widening into the triangular compressed -part in front, which, if the fossil is rightly determined, must have -fitted into the posterior end of the maxillary or anterior end of -the palatine bones.</p> - -<p>A specimen collected by the Rev. T. G. Bonney is preserved on -the sacral side of a left <i>os innominatum</i> with the keel downward. -It appears to show a sutural surface from which an anterior part -has come away. And if this specimen is compared with the -neural arch of the sacral vertebra <b>J</b>.<i>c</i>.4.1, it will be found to -correspond entirely. It is not impossible that <i>c</i>.10.1, 2 may be -vomerine, and <i>c</i>.10.3 sacral, but there are no distinctive characters -between the specimens to warrant such a determination.</p> - - -<div class="fig_left"> -<table summary="location"> -<tr> - <td class="smaller">Case.</td> - <td class="smaller">Comp.</td> - <td class="smaller">Tablet.</td> - <td class="smaller">Specimen.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="smaller"><b>J</b></td> - <td class="smaller"><i>c</i></td> - <td class="smaller">11</td> - <td class="smaller">1—4</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td colspan="4"> </td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td colspan="4"> </td> -</tr> -</table> -</div> - -<div class="div_center"> -QUADRATUM.<br /> -<br /> -<a href="#p_xi">Pl. 11.</a><br /> -<br /> -<span class="smcap">and Quadrato-Jugal.</span> -</div> - - -<p>In the Woodwardian Museum are two distal ends of the -quadrate bone and two other fragments showing the quadrato-jugal -with it.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_90" id="Page_90">« 90 »</a></span></p> - -<p><i>Quadrate.</i> The smallest specimen is <sup>1</sup>/<sub>2</sub> an inch over the -articular surface for the lower jaw and a quarter of an inch -thick. It is concave from side to side in front where it shows a -large pneumatic foramen near the basal end; it is bent from the -articulation a little backward. It is convex behind; and between -the foramen and the articulation sends inward and forward a great -wing like that of the quadratum in birds. The specimens are broken -short off and do not show any articulation above, where the -bone contracts.</p> - -<p>The distal articulation is double, like two long cones placed -together; that in front having the base outward, while the -hinder one has the base on the inner side. The largest specimen, -which is much broken, shows the articulation half an inch thick.</p> - -<p><i>Quadrato-jugal.</i> This is a thin flat squamous bone, apparently -of a transverse diamond shape, which is anchylosed to the anterior -lateral margin of the quadrate, at right angles to the articulation. -The lower margin is straight, as is the upper anterior margin, -which appears to have received the malar bone above.</p> - -<p>The upper posterior side is broken, but shows a large foramen -near to the side of the quadrate. The base of the diamond is -at the articulation, and at its apex is a small fragment of smooth -surface, either part of a foramen, or the orbit of the eye.</p> - -<p>In this specimen the articulation, which is broken, is about <sup>3</sup>/<sub>4</sub> -of an inch wide, <sup>3</sup>/<sub>8</sub> of an inch thick. The remaining piece of the -quadrate is an inch long. The quadrato-jugal is an inch and <sup>3</sup>/<sub>16</sub> -high, and between its broken ends 1<sup>3</sup>/<sub>4</sub> inch long. It is thick and -strong where joining the quadrate, but the rest of the bone is about -an <sup>1</sup>/<sub>8</sub>th of an inch thick.</p> - -<p>The quadrate bone is Avian in possessing a pneumatic foramen, -and Avian in the form of so much of the distal end as is preserved, -and in the articulation for the lower jaw. The process which -it sends inward on the inside is probably for the pterygoid bone, -after the manner of Birds. Before anchylosis with the quadrato-jugal -bone set in, as may be seen in <b>J</b>.<i>c</i>.11.4, the union was made -by a hemispherical knob on the outside of the quadrate, as in <i>Gallus -domesticus</i>. The squamose quadrato-jugal is a distinctive character.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_91" id="Page_91">« 91 »</a></span></p> - - -<div class="fig_left"> -<table summary="location"> -<tr> - <td class="smaller">Case.</td> - <td class="smaller">Comp.</td> - <td class="smaller">Tablet.</td> - <td class="smaller">Specimen.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="smaller"><b>J</b></td> - <td class="smaller"><i>c</i></td> - <td class="smaller">14</td> - <td class="smaller">1—2</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td colspan="4"> </td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td colspan="4"> </td> -</tr> -</table> -</div> - -<div class="div_center"> -?PTERYGOID END OF PALATINE BONE.<br /> -<br /> -<a href="#p_xii">Pl. 12.</a> -</div> - -<p>This determination is conjectural. Its form is such as would -make it probable that it is part of the head. A more perfect -specimen is seen in <b>J</b>.<i>c</i>.1.2.7.</p> - -<p>The best specimen is a compressed sub-quadrate fragment of -bone terminating at one end in a long reniform articular surface, -and at the other end in a fracture where the bone is rapidly -thickening. A side, regarded as the outer one, is flattened, being -slightly concave in length, and slightly convex from side to side. -The form of the inner side of the bone is determined by the -inward curve of the thick part of the articular surface, which -sends a rounded ridge obliquely on to the side, so that while it is -concave from side to side at the articulation, at the fracture it -is convex from side to side. All the specimens are large, the -articulation being not less than an inch long.</p> - - -<div class="center"> -PREMAXILLARY BONES<br /> -<br /> -<a href="#p_xii">Pl. 12.</a> -</div> - -<p>appear to be developed as in birds. An account of their structure -will be found in the notes on the species, <a href="#Page_112">page 112</a>.</p> - -<hr class="r20" /> - -<div class="fig_left"> -<table summary="location"> -<tr> - <td class="smaller">Case.</td> - <td class="smaller">Comp.</td> - <td class="smaller">Tablet.</td> - <td class="smaller">Specimen.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="smaller"><b>J</b></td> - <td class="smaller"><i>c</i></td> - <td class="smaller">12</td> - <td class="smaller">1—6</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td colspan="4"> </td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td colspan="4"> </td> -</tr> -</table> -</div> - -<div class="div_center"> -OS ARTICULARE AND PROXIMAL<br /> -END OF LOWER JAW.<br /> -<br /> -<a href="#p_xii">Pl. 12.</a> -</div> - -<p>Prof. Owen has described in a 'Palæontographical' monograph -the proximal end of a mandible in which the sutures are obliterated. -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 groove; and on the surangular the greater part of the -articular bone rests. The articulation is strong and double, consisting -of a deep transverse hollow, bounded by a strong over-locking -ridge in front and a slight ridge behind; and this area -is divided into two tapering furrows by a strong oblique and -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_92" id="Page_92">« 92 »</a></span> -rounded crest, which passes from behind inward and forward. -Just behind the articulation is a ?pneumatic aperture, and then -the upper surface tapers to the under surface, forming a heel, -of which one specimen measuring an inch deep on the inside -of the articulation has <sup>3</sup>/<sub>4</sub> of an inch still left and is more than <sup>1</sup>/<sub>4</sub> -inch thick at the fracture. In a specimen belonging to the -Rev. T. G. Bonney the outside of the jaw is <sup>11</sup>/<sub>16</sub> of an inch deep, -and under the articulation <sup>5</sup>/<sub>16</sub> of an inch deep. The articular -area is <sup>3</sup>/<sub>4</sub> of an inch wide and <sup>6</sup>/<sub>16</sub> of an inch long.</p> - -<p>Seven specimens indicate four species.</p> - -<p>The proximal end of the lower jaw is entirely Avian. The -pneumatic aperture, as in birds, is placed behind the articulation, -which is shaped as in many birds. Commonly in Ornithosaurians -the bones are anchylosed and all trace of sutures obliterated, as in -most birds. In the Goose, however, the six elements of each side -are sometimes as readily separated as in reptiles. And in some -Pterodactyles the bones separate.</p> - - -<div class="center"> -THE DENTARY BONE<br /> -<br /> -<a href="#p_xii">Pl. 12.</a> -</div> - -<p>The dentary bone consists of a single piece, as in birds and -chelonians; and differs from both in being provided with teeth. -It is described under the species O. machærorhynchus, <a href="#Page_113">page 113</a>.</p> - -<hr class="r20" /> - - -<div class="fig_left"> -<table summary="location"> -<tr> - <td class="smaller">Case.</td> - <td class="smaller">Comp.</td> - <td class="smaller">Tablet.</td> - <td class="smaller">Specimen.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="smaller"><b>J</b></td> - <td class="smaller"><i>c</i></td> - <td class="smaller">17</td> - <td class="smaller">1—39</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td colspan="4"> </td> -</tr> -</table> -</div> - -<div class="div_center"> -THE TEETH.<br /> -<br /> -<a href="#p_xii">Pl. 12.</a> -</div> - -<p>The first three teeth are usually larger than those which are -placed behind them, in this respect rather resembling some fossil -reptiles than Dolphins, and presenting a character like that seen -in the Dimorphodon. They are placed in oblique oval sockets. -They have a single fang like Cetaceans, Edentates, Reptiles, and -like the premaxillary teeth of Mammals. Cambridge specimens -of jaws are not sufficiently perfect to show whether the teeth are -limited to the premaxillary bone; but this appears to be the case -in <i>Pterodactylus crassirostris</i> (Goldf.), and probably in <i>Ornithocheirus -compressirostris</i> (Owen), [<i>Palæontographical Society</i>, 1851, -Pl. 27], and is so regarded by Professor Owen in his later writings. -Yet the significance of this fact seems to have been forgotten, and -Cuvier's dictum about their teeth still has influence. He says, -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_93" id="Page_93">« 93 »</a></span> -"The teeth, by which the examination of an animal ought always -to be commenced, here present nothing equivocal. They are all -simple, conical, and nearly alike, as in the crocodiles, monitors, -and other lizards." But, on the one hand, the Dolphins demonstrate -that a mammal might have similar teeth even in the maxillary -bone; and, on the other hand, since teeth in the premaxillary -bone always are single-fanged, and commonly have a simple sub-conical -crown, there is absolutely no evidence in the teeth of the -affinities of the animal, which, so far as this portion of its economy -went, might as well have been a fish or a mammal as anything -else. In the succession there is nothing very distinctive. In the -Crocodile one tooth comes up under another, as is commonly the -case with mammals; and in mammals the fangs of the old teeth -are often partially absorbed so that the teeth drop out into the -mouth. In the Pterodactyle the new teeth came up on the inner -side, as in the Ichthyosauria—a tribe of animals as singular in -their affinities as the Ornithosauria. Occasionally specimens show -a small furrow on the inner side of the fang, indicating absorption, -but there is nothing to show how many times the teeth were -renewed: in the Dolphins there is but one set, and in Crocodiles -the teeth are replaced many times. In form and size the teeth -are very variable. They are directed obliquely forward, and are -curved backward and inward. They taper in an elongate cone, -compressed from side to side, flattened on the outside, moderately -convex on the inside; rarely the sides meet in a ridge after the plan -of Pliosaurus, Megalosaurus, Dakosaurus, &c.; more frequently the -lateral margins round into each other. Usually the enamel is quite -smooth, sometimes, as in No. 1, it is finely striated and wrinkled. -Some teeth are nearly circular and some quite straight. The -ovate fang contracts below, conically, and is closed, leaving a long -hollow pulp-cavity in its interior. Nos. 9, 10 show the marks of -the successional teeth on their inner sides. No. 11 appears to have -had the crown slightly worn at the tip during the animal's lifetime. -In transverse section of the crown the tooth structure resembles -Ichthyosaurus, Cetaceans, and Bats. The dentine is filled -with calciferous tubes which radiate as in Ichthyosaurus, and towards -the centre of the tooth are seen in transverse section to -present many angles, almost like radiated corpuscles. They are -separated by interspaces of their own width, and run towards the -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_94" id="Page_94">« 94 »</a></span> -circumference, sometimes straight and sometimes wavy, parallel to -each other. They send off branches usually at right angles -which anastomose with the adjoining tubes. The dentine is in -concentric layers, and shows layers of sub-circular cells as in the -teeth of Mammals. The enamel is a thin transparent layer with -fewer and finer tubes than the dentine.</p> - - - -<hr class="chap" /> - -<h2><a name="A_SUMMING_UP" id="A_SUMMING_UP">A SUMMING UP.</a></h2> - - -<p>The story of the structure of the Ornithosaurians of the Cambridge -Greensand has now been told, and it only remains to gather -up the threads of their affinities and determine the Pterodactyle's -place in nature. But before doing so, so various in importance -are the characters enumerated, that I would first offer a few remarks -on the classificational value of characters among the Reptilia, -with which Pterodactyles have been most commonly grouped.</p> - -<p>The naturalist who only examines organisms now living on the -earth, symbolizes to himself, by the term Reptile, a definite sum -of characters, with definite subdivisions and subordinate grouping, -to which the extinct types of life extricated from the rocks cannot -entirely be adapted. When the fragmentary, and often isolated -or ill-associated, bones of fossilized animals are contrasted with -corresponding bones in the skeletons of Serpents, Crocodiles, Lizards -and Turtles, 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 itself, and important -as are the modifications of existing orders. These characters -occasionally are grouped with others which in living animals had -been deemed characteristic of Fishes, Amphibia, Birds, and Mammals.</p> - -<p>The Reptilia of the Palæontologist is therefore a vast and -provisional group, ever acquiring new characters, to which no -diagnosis can be applied. And although certain empirical characters -have served to allocate the specimens in their several orders, -in general with sufficient accuracy, yet from the imperfect preservation -of some of the remains, or the imperfect extent to which -their structures are known, and the want of recognised canons by -which to measure their relative values, it has not been possible to -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_95" id="Page_95">« 95 »</a></span> -discuss the relations of the several orders to each other or with -the larger groups on which some of them impinge.</p> - -<p>Classifications represent more or less faithfully the gradational -increase in the sum of the characters of an organism, as well as the -increase in importance that those character severally attain. Thus -gathering, so far as may be, from the chaos of individuals, <i>a common -plan of structures</i> on which the genus, order, or class is -moulded from a less specialized group of organs. The fundamental -structures of a vertebrate animal, so far as their persistent importance -can be measured, are, those connected with</p> - -<table summary="list"> -<tr> - <td class="tdr">I.</td> - <td class="tdl">Perpetuating the race.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdr">II.</td> - <td class="tdl">Construction of the brain.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdr">III.</td> - <td class="tdl">Circulation and oxidation of the blood.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdr">IV.</td> - <td class="tdl">Locomotion, i.e. skeleton, muscles, &c.</td> -</tr> -</table> - -<p>And these characteristics are for the most part so interlinked, -that it becomes difficult to assign to one order of animals a relative -superiority over another order; 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 group. -Thus among reptiles it might be considered that</p> - -<div style="width: 15em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: left;"> -<i>Crocodiles</i> have the best hearts, and<br /> -<i>Turtles</i> the best lungs. -</div> - -<p>And since these structures in their functions severally modify and -determine the use of other structures, 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 respiration, or circulation of the blood. The soft parts -thus determining the nutrition and function of the muscles and -skeleton, anatomists in examining the bones of extinct animals are -accustomed to reverse the order of their inferences, and infer from -modifications of the skeleton what had been the characters of the -soft and more vital structures.</p> - -<p>On the presumed accuracy of this method of research rest -many results of Comparative Anatomy. But since the shapes of -bones are determined by the muscles as well as by inheritance, it -is always to be remembered that a similar form of bone may obtain -in different orders or classes of animals, as the result of a similar -function in a special region of the body. Such resemblances are -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_96" id="Page_96">« 96 »</a></span> -familiar to anatomists. Hence much caution is required from the -Palæontologist to distinguish between the characteristics of a group, -and the extent to which they may be modified by function. This -distinction is the first principle of classification. But it is always -difficult to estimate the importance of characters in fragments of -bones or parts of skeletons, and the difficulty is increased by the -fact that if what appears to be but a functional modification should -pervade all the species, it becomes a characteristic of the group, -and its power of modifying the other organs in a peculiar way has -to be considered.</p> - -<p>Thus for all practical purposes birds may be said to be characterized -by wings, which almost acquire the dignity of class characters -from their influence on the respiratory function. But in some -birds it has been thought that no bone of the fore-limb was ever -developed<a name="FNanchor_22" id="FNanchor_22"></a><a href="#Footnote_22" class="fnanchor">[V]</a>; and the difference between such a phenomenon and the -wing of a Swift, for example, is one almost of infinity, as compared -with any other aspect that the anterior limb might have assumed. -Therefore, since a bird may part with its fore-limbs and yet remain -a bird, I infer that it might apply its fore-limbs to the ground, become -a quadruped, and be a bird still. And if in this process the -other structures remained unchanged, no one would regard the -modification as more than an ordinal one. But should the vertebræ -change also, or the pelvis, or the covering of the integument, or -the jaws become toothed, then, although the heart and lungs and -brain of the imaginary animal retained their class characters, the -functional differences being more than those of an order would -constitute it a sub-class.</p> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_22" id="Footnote_22"></a><a href="#FNanchor_22"><span class="label">[V]</span></a> According to Prof. Owen, in Dinornis.</p></div> - -<p>In the same way it is conceivable that serpents may have -existed with well-developed limbs, and if they retained their -other characters the limbed forms would constitute a sub-order -of serpents; but if to these characters they added a closed palate -united to the cranium, they would constitute a new order of reptiles. -A chelonian might be entirely deprived of its bony covering, -and it would still be a chelonian, differing only as a separate -family. So that structures which to the eye appear fundamental -may be lost without affecting an animal's systematic position, just -as animals while resembling each other in form may possess dissimilar -organization.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_97" id="Page_97">« 97 »</a></span></p> - -<p>Even with the living or typical Reptilia, naturalists are divided -as to the number of ordinal groups into which they naturally fall. -It is however generally agreed that the Amphibia or Dipnoa of -Fitzinger, have no near affinity with the true reptiles. Milne-Edwards, -Van der Hoeven and Agassiz make the remainder into -three orders, as did Cuvier:</p> - -<div style="width: 7em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: left;"> - Chelonia,<br /> - Sauria,<br /> - Ophidia.<br /> -</div> - -<p>Stannius, Gray, Owen and Huxley, on the other hand, by dividing -the Saurians make four orders, to which Dr Günther by his description -of Sphenodon has given evidence of a fifth:</p> - -<div style="width: 7em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: left;"> - Crocodilia,<br /> - Chelonia,<br /> - Sauria,<br /> - Ophidia,<br /> - (Rhynchocephalia.) -</div> - -<p>De Blainville in a remarkable classification (1816), made three -orders, Chelonians, Emydosaurians [crocodiles], and Saurophidians; -the latter group being subdivided into Saurians and -Ophidians.</p> - -<p>In his "Handbuch der Anatomie der Wirbelthiere" Stannius -unites the Crocodilia and Chelonia into a group called Monimostylica; -while of the Sauria and Ophidia he makes another group -called Streptostylica. Similar groups were made by Dr Gray, and -named Cataphracta and Squamata. They are identical with the -"cuirassed" and "scaly" reptiles of Dumeril and Bibron.</p> - -<p>The <i>Astylica</i> (Sphenodon) have no penis.</p> - -<p>The <i>Streptostylica</i> have a double penis, lungs simplified at the -distal end into a mere air-bladder, brains with a moderately -elongated cerebrum, the palate mesially open, scales, leathery shell -to the egg cut through by a tooth on the premaxillary bone.</p> - -<p>The <i>Monimostylica</i> have a single penis, lungs well subdivided, -ventricle of heart partly [turtles] or entirely divided [crocodiles], -brains having the cerebrum broad or high, a closed palate, scutes, -a calcareous shell to the egg.</p> - -<p>Thus the chief differences between Turtles and Crocodiles on -the one hand, and Lizards and Serpents on the other hand, are -not so much in the fundamental vital structures, though these -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_98" id="Page_98">« 98 »</a></span> -undergo changes even in the families, as in the different ways in -which the muscles and skeleton are modified. The typical lizards -diverge widely from the crocodiles, and in those osteological features -which admit of comparison they make at least as near an -approach to the Chelonians. But leaving the limbs and pectoral -and pelvic girdles out of consideration, lizards find their natural -place side by side with the serpents.</p> - -<p>Attempts have been made by Palæontologists to incorporate -the new ordinal groups which they have been compelled to create -for some fossils, along with the true Reptilia; but such a proceeding -destroys the value of the term Reptile as a measure of a known -organization. In the absence of knowledge of the brains of Dinosaurs, -Ichthyosaurs, and Dicynodonts, their union with the Reptilia -can only have a stagnating effect on Palæontology, for there is -no proof that they are Reptiles in the same sense as are Crocodiles -or Chameleons: while their bones being used as standards of -Reptilian structure in comparisons, they adjudicate the place -in nature of other animals by an authority which has never been -established.</p> - -<p>Before any inference can be drawn from the forms of bones -in extinct animals, their relations to vital structures and to way -of life must be known in animals which still live. This may give -some clue both to their functional significance and to the extent -to which they are inherited and not directly attributable to -function. 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 allies, tracing the now imitative structure -back to its origin in a function which has ceased to be displayed.</p> - -<p>Professor Owen in his "Comparative Anatomy of the Vertebrates" -(1866) admits nine orders of Reptiles, five of which are -extinct, some of the extinct orders being supposed to rank lower, -while others are higher than the living types. They are arranged -in this way,</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_99" id="Page_99">« 99 »</a></span></p> - -<table summary="list"> -<tr> - <td>*</td> - <td class="tdl">Pterosauria,</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td>*</td> - <td class="tdl">Dinosauria,</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td></td> - <td class="tdl">Crocodilia,</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td></td> - <td class="tdl">Ophidia,</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td></td> - <td class="tdl">Lacertilia,</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td></td> - <td class="tdl">Chelonia</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td>*</td> - <td class="tdl">Anomodontia,</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td>*</td> - <td class="tdl">Sauropterygia,</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td>*</td> - <td class="tdl">Ichthyopterygia.+</td> -</tr> -</table> - -<table style="width:85%;" summary="notes"> -<tr> - <td>*</td> - <td class="tdl">Extinct.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="vtop">+</td> - <td class="tdl">Prof. Owen, <i>Comp. Anat.</i> Vol. <span class="smcap">I.</span> p. 7-9, defines his - sub-classes. At p. 15, in the details of the orders, he puts - Ichthyosaurus in the 5th sub-class <i>Monopnoa</i>. But at p. 50, - treating of the vertebral column of Ichthyosaurus, it is written of - as an extinct order of <i>Dipnoal</i> reptiles. The Dipnoa then - would include<br /> - - <div style="width: 7em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: left;"> - Ichthyosauria,<br /> - Batrachia,<br /> - Labyrinthodontia,<br /> - Ganocephala.<br /> - </div> - - But Ichthyosaurus obviously belongs to Haeckel's group Monocondylia.</td> -</tr> -</table> - -<p>In what characters the Ichthyosaurs are lower than living -reptiles I have been unable to discover. The palate may be better -compared with a struthious bird than with a reptile; and the -pectoral girdle may be better compared with the Ornithodelphia -than with a reptile, while all the trunk-vertebræ have ribs such -as are associated in living animals with a four-celled heart. But if -it is a lower animal type than living reptilia, the student will ask, -how much lower? does it descend to the Dipnoa, and prove to be -the missing link between the Amphibia and Reptilia? and wherein -is the evidence? Or does it not with Dicynodonts and Dinosaurs -rather form an outlying class uniting the reptiles with the mammals.</p> - -<p>In the same way, when Pterosauria and Dinosauria are placed -above living reptiles, we are compelled to ask how much are they -above, or what are the characters which bind them to the Reptilia -at all? No satisfactory evidence has ever been adduced to show -that the Dinosauria are Reptiles. And of the claim of the Pterodactyles -to such a position, the facts detailed and now summarised -will be the best evidence.</p> - -<p>The highest structure shown in these remains is the brain-case. -The cavity for the brain is in every respect like that in -the skull of a bird. It resembles brains of a high type in having -the cerebral lobes convex in front; since, in the lower mammals, -there is a resemblance to reptiles in the conical form of the -cerebrum; while the brains even of some of the placental -mammals are not well distinguished from those of reptiles. Although -the brain of the Ornithorhynchus is entirely mammalian, -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_100" id="Page_100">« 100 »</a></span> -it is more like the brain of a reptile than is the brain of the -Pterodactyle. No evidence of affinities could be adduced which -would outweigh this. Taken by itself it would lead us to anticipate -for the Pterodactyle those vital structures which birds -have in common.</p> - -<p>Next in importance to the brain are the pneumatic perforations -in the bones. They are seen in the lower jaw, the quadrate bone, -in the whole of the vertebral column, in all the bones of the fore-limb, -excepting one or two fragments, in the scapula and coracoid, -in the os innominatum, in the femur and in the tibia. In -such of the bones as can be compared, the pneumatic perforation -is usually situated in Birds as it is in Pterodactyles. In Birds -the bones are filled with air through these perforations, and as a -principle the greater the motion of the animal, the greater is -the number of bones filled with air. This air is received from -the air-sacs which receive it from the lungs, and return it through -the lungs again. There is thus in birds a sort of supplemental -lung-system, which circulates air through the body. Nothing of -the kind exists in any other class of animals. The respiratory -system in birds is more perfect and complex than in the other -vertebrata, and, as a result, the temperature of the blood on the -whole is hotter.</p> - -<p>In Pterodactyles the reticulate character of the perforations -proves that they were pneumatic, and supplied the bones with -air. The fact that the bones were supplied with air, necessitates -an elaborate system of air-sacs to furnish the supply. And the -existence of these air-sacs speaks incontestably to bronchial tubes -opening on the surface of the lungs to supply them, and to the -existence of lungs essentially like those of birds. The outward -and backward direction of the coracoid bones may indicate that -the lungs were larger than in a bird.</p> - -<p>The circulation of air through the bird's body has relation to -rapid motion through the atmosphere, which necessarily produces -more rapid respiration than would comparative quiescence. The -same inference must be applied to the Pterodactyles. But rapid -respiration only means more rapid oxidation of the blood, and -conversion of the purple cruorine into scarlet cruorine,—that -is, the conversion of venous blood into arterial blood. And if -venous blood is converted into arterial blood by a lung-apparatus -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_101" id="Page_101">« 101 »</a></span> -like that of a bird, and with a rapidity like that in a bird, there -must be a circulation of the blood as rapid as in birds. Such a -circulation is only maintained by a heart with two auricles and -two ventricles. Therefore Pterodactyles had the heart like that -of birds and mammals.</p> - -<p>Now, since the temperature of the blood is chiefly dependent -on respiration and circulation, and Pterodactyles had respiratory -and circulatory organs which in living animals produce hot blood, -it results that they were hot-blooded animals.</p> - -<p>Thus the heart and lungs are exactly such as would have been -inferred from the brain, and, like it, they are avian. And so -important are these vital structures all taken together, that the -inference from them upon an animal's affinities would overbear all -other evidence that could be adduced except reproduction; for -they demonstrate the plan on which an animal was built, and are -the motor power which enabled it to use its skeleton in a way -that stamped upon it a peculiar form.</p> - -<p>In the head such structures as are preserved conform with -slight variations to the avian plan. Other Ornithosaurians show -in the parts which are not preserved in Cambridge specimens -some characters which are not avian; they are in part as much -mammalian as reptilian, and in a few points entirely reptilian. -But it might be misleading to take German specimens into consideration -in forming an estimate of the Pterodactyles of the Cambridge -Greensand, which were probably a different ordinal group, -and may have had material differences in structure.</p> - -<p>The vertebral column as a whole is distinctive.</p> - -<p>The neck and sacrum are mammalian, and the tail reptilian. -The procœlous vertebræ are characteristic of reptiles, but in some -animals, as Chelonians, they vary in different regions of the body; -and among amphibians the character is inconstant in genera -nearly allied.</p> - -<p>The hind-limb is in part mammalian and in part avian; if -there be any reptilian characters in the foot, they are not less -mammalian.</p> - -<p>The os innominatum is avian and mammalian.</p> - -<p>The pectoral girdle is avian.</p> - -<p>The fore-limb is avian and mammalian.</p> - -<p>The wing-finger is distinctive, though formed on the avian plan.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_102" id="Page_102">« 102 »</a></span></p> - -<p>Thus, if with an avian basis some parts of the skeleton present -points of agreement with reptiles, in other points there are resemblances -with mammals not less characteristic. These phænomena -do not show that in so far the animal is a mammal or a reptile, -but only that mammals, ornithosaurians, and reptiles have had a -common origin, and that while they have been differentiated so -as to form separate classes they have severally retained characters -which formerly were united in one class. It is a skeleton intermediate -between reptiles and mammals, and well distinguished by -mammalian, reptilian, and peculiar characters, from birds. It therefore -forms a parallel group with birds, displaying the ornithic -organization in a differently modified skeleton. Yet it differs more -from existing birds than they differ among themselves, for the discrepancies -are in points of structure in which all existing birds -agree: they are in having teeth, in the procœlous centrum, in the -separate condition of the carpal and metacarpal (and of the tarsal -and metatarsal) bones; in having more than two bones in the fore-arm, -in the sacrum formed of few vertebræ, in the expanded pubic -(and prepubic) bones, in a long neck to the femur, and in the -modification of the wing by the great development of the phalanges -of one finger.</p> - -<p>I therefore regard the Pterodactyles as forming a group of -equal value with birds, for which group the name Ornithosauria -is here used. It cannot form a separate class, because they have -a fundamental organization in common; and it cannot form an -order of birds, because its differences from birds are greater than -those of an order. It is a group which itself probably includes -several orders, and must constitute a sub-class, which finds its -place in nature side by side with birds and between mammals and -reptiles, thus:—</p> - - -<div class="fig_center" style="width: 136px; margin-bottom: 4em;"> -<img src="images/page_102.png" width="136" height="134" alt="" /> -</div> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_103" id="Page_103">« 103 »</a></span></p> - - -<p class="caption3"><span class="smcap">Restoration.</span></p> - -<p>Of the form and size<a name="FNanchor_23" id="FNanchor_23"></a><a href="#Footnote_23" class="fnanchor">[W]</a> of the animals from the Cambridge -Greensand, an idea will best be given by a few measurements.</p> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_23" id="Footnote_23"></a><a href="#FNanchor_23"><span class="label">[W]</span></a> There are Ornithosaurians hereafter to be described compared with which -the largest at present known will seem diminutive. A vertebra of one such, -from the Wealden, is contained in the British Museum (numbered 28632). -The centrum alone is between 9 and 10 inches long and 8 inches deep. It is -named Streptospondylus, but constitutes a new group of Ornithosaurians. -Nothing so gigantic exists in the Woodwardian Museum. Another vertebra -of the same or an allied genus has been figured by Prof. Owen as the tympanic -bone of ?Iguonodon (Fossil Reptilia of the Wealden, Part 2, pl. 10).</p></div> - -<p>In the species Ornithocheirus nasutus (Seeley), <b>J</b>.<i>c</i>.2.11.1:</p> - -<p>The premaxillary extends for 6 inches without reaching the -nares.</p> - -<p>The lower jaw is <sup>3</sup>/<sub>4</sub> of an inch deep at the articulation.</p> - -<p>The four cervical vertebræ are each 1<sup>1</sup>/<sub>2</sub> inch long.</p> - -<p>The sternum measures 1<sup>1</sup>/<sub>2</sub> inch over the facets for the coracoids.</p> - -<p>The humerus is 2<sup>1</sup>/<sub>16</sub> inches over the proximal end, the radial -crest not being preserved.</p> - -<p>The coracoid is 1<sup>1</sup>/<sub>4</sub> inch over the proximal end.</p> - -<p>The scapula is about 3<sup>1</sup>/<sub>2</sub> inches long.</p> - -<p>The proximal carpal (imperfect) is 1<sup>5</sup>/<sub>8</sub> inch wide.</p> - -<p>The distal carpal is 1<sup>1</sup>/<sub>2</sub> inch wide.</p> - -<p>The lateral carpal is 1<sup>1</sup>/<sub>4</sub> inch long.</p> - -<p>The wing-metacarpal is 1<sup>1</sup>/<sub>4</sub> inch wide at the proximal end, and -<sup>7</sup>/<sub>8</sub> inch wide at the distal end.</p> - -<p>The proximal end of the first phalange is about 1<sup>5</sup>/<sub>8</sub> inch wide.</p> - -<p>The proximal end of the second phalange is less than an inch -wide.</p> - -<p>The claw-phalange (imperfect) is about 1<sup>1</sup>/<sub>4</sub> inch long.</p> - -<p>The femur is 4 inches long.</p> - -<p class="p0">Putting the animal together, the bones give this size :</p> - -<table summary="measurements"> -<tr> - <td class="tdl">Head</td> - <td>1 ft.</td> - <td>3 in.</td> - <td>long.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdl">Neck</td> - <td></td> - <td>9</td> - <td> ”</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdl">(<i>Back and sacrum</i>)</td> - <td class="tdr">?</td> - <td>8</td> - <td> ”</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdl">(<i>Tail</i>)</td> - <td class="tdr">?</td> - <td>10</td> - <td> ”</td> -</tr> -</table> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_104" id="Page_104">« 104 »</a></span></p> - -<p>With the hypothetical parts, this would give a length of about -3 ft. 6 in. from the tip of the snout to the tip of the tail. Then</p> - -<table summary="measurements"> -<tr> - <td class="tdl">Humerus</td> - <td></td> - <td>8 in.</td> - <td>long.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdl">(<i>Fore-arm</i>)</td> - <td>?1 ft.</td> - <td>0</td> - <td> ”</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdl">Carpus</td> - <td></td> - <td>2</td> - <td> ”</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdl">Metacarpus</td> - <td></td> - <td>10</td> - <td> ”</td> -</tr> -</table> - -<p>Which, if the fore-limbs were kept together as in ordinary quadrupeds, -would give a height to the body of about 2 ft. 6 in., but as -the limbs probably spread in walking as among the bats, the hind-limb -would give a better idea of the height of the animal.</p> - -<table summary="measurements"> -<tr> - <td class="tdl">(Flesh, sacrum, os innominatum).</td> - <td>2</td> - <td>in.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdl">Femur</td> - <td>4</td> - <td> ”</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdl">(<i>Tibia</i>)</td> - <td>6</td> - <td> ”</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdl">(Metatarsus, &c.)</td> - <td>1</td> - <td> ”</td> -</tr> -</table> - -<p>Which would give a height of about 13 inches; and, standing -in the position of a bird, the height to the crown of the head -would be about 2 feet. The majority of the Ornithosaurians of the -Cambridge Greensand are of this size.</p> - -<p>The spread of the wings, if there were 4 phalanges, would be</p> - -<table summary="measurements"> -<tr> - <td class="tdl">Body</td> - <td></td> - <td>10</td> - <td>in. wide.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdl">Two arms</td> - <td>5 ft.</td> - <td class="tdr">2</td> - <td>”</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdl">Two wing fingers</td> - <td>7</td> - <td class="tdr">0</td> - <td>”</td> -</tr> -</table> - -<p>Giving a total expanse of about 13 feet. But, from the indications -of the wing-finger, I should incline to think an expanse of -10 feet a truer estimate. The largest species attained to twice -this size, and the smallest was a fourth as large. Another memoir -will present descriptions and restorations of the Greensand -species.</p> - - -<p><span class="smcap">Habits.</span></p> - -<p>The varying organization of different Ornithosaurians probably -depends on the different habits of the tribes. That they could -all fly is probable from the enormous radial crest to the humerus -and the great development of the wing-bones, to which a wing-membrane -was stretched, comparable to that of a Bat in texture, -but more comparable to a Bird in its extent. The groups with long -hind-legs probably had the membrane limited to the bones of the -arm, while in the species with small hind-legs it may have attained -even as great a development as in Bats, though there is no reason -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_105" id="Page_105">« 105 »</a></span> -for suspecting that it extended to the tail. A Pterodactyle cannot -be supposed to have hung itself up by the hind-legs as does -a Bat, because the hind-claws appear invariably to be directed -forward. A Bat walks upon four legs with considerable elegance -and speed; the wing is folded in, close to the side, so as to be -scarcely noticed; and the outer claw is free to climb with. There -can be little doubt but that Pterodactyles walked in a similar -way. The thickened mammilate knob at the proximal end of the -first phalange is well calculated for contact with the ground. And -if it were supposed that the large wing-metacarpal bone were only -used to support the wing, and the small metacarpals only used to -support the claws by which the creature has sometimes been pictured -suspending itself, 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 length. A correspondence -of this kind may be presumed to indicate a correspondence -in function; and since the animal did not fly by means -of its claws, the inference is that it walked by means of the metacarpal -bones. In no other way could the bones have been used -equally. The avian ilium would suggest a probability that they -also at times stood erect like birds, from which position they -could with more ease expand their wings; nor is such an idea -opposed by the resemblance of some bones of the hind-limb to what -obtains in birds, and of the neck of the femur to what is seen in -mammals of great power in the hind-legs.</p> - -<p>That they lived exclusively upon land and in air is improbable, -considering the circumstances under which their remains are -found. It is likely that they haunted the sea-shores, and, while -sometimes rowing themselves over the water with their powerful -wings, used the wing-membrane as does the Bat to enclose their prey -and bring it to the mouth. But the superior development of the -pneumatic foramina suggest that their activity was greater than -in ordinary sea-birds.</p> - -<p>The large Cambridge Pterodactyles probably pursued a more -substantial prey than dragon-flies. Their teeth are well suited for -fish, but probably fowl and small mammal, and even fruits, made -a variety in their food. As the lord of the cliff, it may be presumed -to have taken toll of all animals that could be conquered -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_106" id="Page_106">« 106 »</a></span> -with tooth and nail. From its brain it might be regarded as an -intelligent animal. The jaws present indications of having been -sheathed with a horny covering, and some of the species show a -rugose anterior termination of the snout suggestive of fleshy lips -like those of the Bat, and which may have been similarly used to -stretch and clean the wing-membrane.</p> - -<p>The high temperature, coupled with the sub-aerial life, are -opposed to the idea of the animal having been naked. The undisturbed -condition of the skeleton and some points of structure -are opposed to the idea of their having had large feathers. The -absence of such remains does not favour the hypothesis of their -having been covered with scales, though in the legs of birds a -scaly covering is met with. I should anticipate for them a filamentous -downy feather, or hair, like a Bat's. The Bat combs its -hair with its claws, and the Ornithosaurians may have used their -claws in a similar way.</p> - -<p>They cannot be supposed to have been gregarious, from the -large number of species relatively to specimens. The reproduction -may have been much the same as in birds; and the young -were probably reared with affectionate care<a name="FNanchor_24" id="FNanchor_24"></a><a href="#Footnote_24" class="fnanchor">[X]</a>.</p> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_24" id="Footnote_24"></a><a href="#FNanchor_24"><span class="label">[X]</span></a> Mr Carruthers has shown me crushed Turtle-like eggs from the Stonesfield -slate, 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 Ornithosaurian.</p></div> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p><i>The following notes indicate structures in perfect specimens -from the Lithographic slate which supplement the fragmentary -remains from the Cambridge Greensand</i><a name="FNanchor_25" id="FNanchor_25"></a><a href="#Footnote_25" class="fnanchor">[Y]</a>.</p> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_25" id="Footnote_25"></a><a href="#FNanchor_25"><span class="label">[Y]</span></a> The German animals form different family groups. And it cannot be -inferred that the structures seen in them pertained to Cambridge specimens.</p></div> - -<p>In the head, Cambridge specimens show no trace of the parts -which are between the brain-cavity and the fore-part of the jaw. -The form and condition of the orbits, nares, and of the space -between them, vary in German specimens. Some Birds and -certain Ruminants, such as deer, the giraffe, &c., have an interspace -between the orbits and nares corresponding to that in some -Pterodactyles, but no such perforation is found in living reptiles. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_107" id="Page_107">« 107 »</a></span> -In mammals it appears to be surrounded by the frontal, nasal, -lachrymal, and often by the maxillary bone. In birds the bones -appear to be the lachrymal, nasal, maxillary and premaxillary, as -is the case with Pterodactyles, except that the nasal bones would -seem sometimes to be excluded. The chief peculiarity of the Pterodactyle -skull in this region is made by the malar bone (and, -according to some authors, the maxillary also) sending up a process -to meet the lachrymal. This is not seen in birds, but is -characteristic of many mammals and reptiles.</p> - -<p>The premaxillary bone is single, as in birds and Iguana; but -it appears to attain as great a development as in birds, and to -occupy the portion of the jaw which among reptiles and mammals -is made by the maxillary bone. Owing to the great development -of the premaxillary bones, the exterior nares are placed far back -toward the middle of the skull as in birds, and not near the tip of -the snout as in living reptiles and most mammals.</p> - -<p>The orbits in Pterodactyles are surrounded with bone, as is -commonly the case with mammals and reptiles. Among birds a -complete orbit is seen among the parrots, in which it is completed -below by a prolongation of the outer posterior corner of the -frontal, which would correspond to the post-frontal bone, and by -the lachrymal bone. Thus the malar bone, which in most mammals -and reptiles forms an important part of the lower margin of -the orbit, is in birds entirely excluded. In Pterodactyles the -malar bone is placed between the lachrymal and the post-frontal -process of the frontal bone.</p> - -<p>The quadrate bone in German Pterodactyles, instead of being -vertical as in birds, stretches obliquely forward below the malar -bone, so that the articulation for the lower jaw is brought forward -to be under the middle of the orbit. In <i>Pterodactylus Kochi</i> and -in other species there appears to be a process, or small separate -triradiate bone, comparable to a diminished lacertian post-frontal, -and homologous with the post-frontal process of the parrots. Its -upper branch meets the frontal. In some genera the front appears -to meet the malar. The lower branch goes to the front of the -quadrate bone, and the backward branch goes to the squamosal -immediately above the articulation for the quadrate bone. Thus -it is a post-frontal bone resembling that of the Iguana, but modified -and adapted to a cranium like that of a bird. Its form and -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_108" id="Page_108">« 108 »</a></span> -size in the different genera are very variable. No similar development -is seen among mammals, where the post-frontals have -probably ceased to exist. It is a carious point of resemblance, -but from the other resemblances to Iguana being so few it is -robbed of much of its force as a mark of affinity, and becomes -of interest chiefly as an evidence of independent persistence of -structures.</p> - -<p>The pterygoid and palatine bones approximate to those of -bird and lizard in Pterodactylus crassirostris. And the bones in -Pterodactylus suevicus, which Quenstedt names vomera, should -rather have been named palatines. There is a bone in Goldfuss' -specimen, between the malar and palatine, which he identifies with -the transverse bone, but it is not seen in any other specimen.</p> - -<p>The ribs sometimes appear to articulate by single heads, but in -P. crassirostris they are apparently articulated as in the Crocodile. -Some species show abdominal ribs like those of some reptiles; but -the segments of the mammalian sternum and abdominal ribs are -to be regarded as homologous structures. The vertebræ offer considerable -variety in size and shape, but the greatest variation in -number is seen in the tail, which is sometimes stiff and long, and -sometimes short. The pelvic bones show a large amount of variation -in different genera, often appearing to be crocodilian, sometimes -lacertian, sometimes mammalian. In the aim the humerus -is variable in the length of the radial crest, and the metacarpus -also varies in length.</p> - -<p>When the external similarity of the skeletons of birds is borne -in mind, it is impossible, without disregard of classification altogether, -to place animals differing so widely as do the different -Ornithosaurians in the few genera in which they are at present -packed.</p> - - - -<hr class="chap" /> - -<h2><a name="CLASSIFICATION" id="CLASSIFICATION">CLASSIFICATION.</a></h2> - - -<p>The orders of Ornithosaurians may be established hereafter. -Under the name Pterosauria, Prof. Owen founded one order which -has for its type the Pterodactylus longirostris.</p> - -<p>Von Meyer proposed to separate this order into two groups, -one with two phalanges in the wing-finger, of which Ornithopterus -is the only example, forming his <span class="smcap">Diathri</span>; while the other group, -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_109" id="Page_109">« 109 »</a></span> -<span class="smcap">Tetrathri</span>, or those "with four fingers, comprised all other Pterosaurians. -The Tetrathri he again subdivided, following out, as he -states, the suggestion of Munster and Goldfuss, into <i>Dentirostres</i> -or such Pterodactyles as have the jaws furnished with teeth to -their anterior termination; and the <i>Subulirostres</i>, or such as want -teeth at the extremities of the jaws. To the former group he -left the name Pterodactylus, and to the latter was given the -name Rhamphorhynchus. Von Meyer says that he might easily -have made a few more species, as will be evident to those who -inspect his plates, but he "believes that the students of living -animals go too far in their tendency to subdivide:" a fancy that, -if indulged in by Palæontologists, would have the effect of restoring -the old Linnæan groups; and a complaint which, although -often heard, has usually come from those who do not readily discern -and appraise classificational characters. In Palæontology genera -are sometimes co-extensive with orders, while species often mean -genera. It may be wearisome to the collector to be lured on to -follow the devious ways of a science, but Palæontology, the source -whence the mysteries of existing nature must unravel their meaning, -is the handmaid of all nature's truths which have been buried -in evolving the existing creation; and a duty devolves upon Palæontologists -to make the past an inseparable part of the present, -by applying to the two the same scientific method.</p> - -<p>A year previous to the formation of Owen's Pterosauria, Bonaparte -named the Order Ornithosaurii, and divided it into a family—Pterodactylæ, -and a sub-family Pterodactylinæ.</p> - -<p>Fitzinger (<i>Systema Reptilium</i>, 1843) also used the same ordinal -name, and recognized three genera—</p> - -<p><i>Pachyrhamphus</i>, of which the type is Pterodactylus crassirostris -(Gold.).</p> - -<p><i>Pterodactylus</i>, with the type P. longirostris (Cuv.).</p> - -<p>And <i>Ornithocephalus</i>, with the type O. brevirostris (Sömm.).</p> - -<p>These and other attempts at classification all endeavour to -subdivide Ornithosaurians by the head or by the tail. Other -characters for primary divisions may be obtained from the pelvis.</p> - -<p>In the majority of German Pterodactyles the ilium extends for -a long distance in front of the os pubis, and only for a very short -distance behind the large ischium; and the small pubis from its -anterior margin gives attachment to a large prepubic bone, which -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_110" id="Page_110">« 110 »</a></span> -resembles in form the os pubis of the Crocodile<a name="FNanchor_26" id="FNanchor_26"></a><a href="#Footnote_26" class="fnanchor">[Z]</a>, and is unlike -that of the Monotreme. These appear to include the long-legged -animals with short tails, at present called Pterodactyles, and form -a well-marked family or order.</p> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_26" id="Footnote_26"></a><a href="#FNanchor_26"><span class="label">[Z]</span></a> Prof. Haughton, from a study of the bones and muscles, came to the -conclusion that the pubic bones of Crocodiles are the marsupial bones.</p></div> - -<p>Another kind of pelvis is that in which the ilium extends a -short way in front of the acetabulum, in which the pelvic bones -inclose a much larger space. These include the Cambridge Ornithosaurians, -the Rhamphorhynchus, and the Dimorphodon, and -form another well-marked family.</p> - -<p>These long-tailed Pterodactyles subdivide into three sub-families—Rhamphorhynchæ, -Dimorphodontæ, and Ornithocheiræ. The -four families may then be defined thus:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p><i>Pterodactylæ</i>. Tail short. Hind-legs long. Ilium narrow, -extending far anterior to the acetabulum; ischium extending -behind the acetabulum. Epipubic bones ficiform. Head -with the middle holes large, often confluent with the exterior -nares. Jaws toothed to the anterior extremity.</p> - -<p><i>Rhamphorhynchæ</i>. Tail long and stiff. Hind-legs short. -Pubis and ischium small, oblique to ilium, which extends -less far anteriorly than in Pterodactylæ. Epipubic bones -narrow and bent; they unite mesially and form a three-sided -bow in front of the pelvis. Head with the middle -holes and nares both small. Jaws never toothed to the -anterior extremity.</p> - -<p><i>Dimorphodontæ</i>. Tail long and stiff. Hind-legs long. Pubis -and ischium forming an expanded sheet of bone at right -angles with the narrow ilium, which extends as far behind -as in front [prepubic bones triangular (?) attached by the -apex of the triangle]. Head with the nares and middle -holes large. Quadrate bone large. Jaws with large teeth -at the extremities, and small teeth behind. No sacrum.</p> - -<p><i>Ornithocheiræ</i>. Tail long and flexible. Hind-legs short. Pelvis -as in Dimorphodontæ. [Epipubic bones with a small -attachment, form unknown.] Head with the quadrate -bone small. Sacrum of not fewer than three vertebræ.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_111" id="Page_111">« 111 »</a></span></p></div> - -<p>In the Pterodactylæ the genera are—</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p><i>Pterodactylus</i> (Cuvier), in which the exterior nares are at the -sides of the face, very large, and only partially, if at all, -separated by bone from the small middle hole of the head. The head -is elongated. The neck is long. Among others, it includes the -species P. longirostris, P. Kochi, P. scolopaciceps, P. longicollum.</p> - -<p><i>Ornithocephalus</i> (Sömmerring), in which the anterior nares are -entirely separated from the middle holes of the head, both being -small, and the latter exceedingly small. The head is short The -neck is short. The large ischium appears to be excluded from the -acetabulum, and the ilium appears to extend less far forward than -in Pterodactylus<a name="FNanchor_27" id="FNanchor_27"></a><a href="#Footnote_27" class="fnanchor">[AA]</a>.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_27" id="Footnote_27"></a><a href="#FNanchor_27"><span class="label">[AA]</span></a> So far as can be judged from figures, it appears to have but three bones -in the wing-finger: what Cuvier regarded as a terminal and fourth joint, the -bone <i>n</i>, Pl. <span class="smcap">XXIII.</span> fig. 7, <i>Oss. Foss.</i>, appearing to me to be the fibula of the tibia -marked <i>e</i>. <i>s</i> in the same figure would be the terminal phalange, and <i>r</i> the first -phalange, as may be proved by measuring them with those of the other hand, -so that a phalange is missing from between them. Both the terminal phalanges -appear to be hooked at the termination. Goldfuss figures the phalanges so as -to make the bone which appears to be fibula in Sömmerring and Cuvier look -like a fourth phalange.</p></div> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p><i>Pachyrhamphus</i> (Fitzinger). The nares are entirely separated from -the middle holes of the head; both are large. The head is thick -and massive. The prepubic bones meet mesially. No evidence of -the number of phalanges in the wing-finger. The quadrate bone -is massive, but has small attachment to the skull. Two sacral -vertebræ. Wing-metacarpal very short. The type is P. crassirostris -(Goldfuss).</p> - -<p><i>Cycnorhamphus</i> (Seeley). Nares very small, looking upward from -a swan-like beak. The middle hole of the skull very large and -elongated and lateral. Neck long. Wing-metacarpal long. Four -joints in the wing-finger. Ilium widening in front. Epipubic bones -meeting mesially. The type is Pterodactylus suevicus (Quenstedt).</p></div> - -<p>In the Rhamphorhynchæ at present there appears to be but one -genus known:</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_112" id="Page_112">« 112 »</a></span></p><div class="blockquot"> - -<p>Rhamphorhynchus (von Meyer). The nares and middle holes -are both small, ovate, of nearly equal size, and close together -at the side of the head in front of the orbit.</p></div> - -<p>In the Dimorphodontæ the only genus is</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p><i>Dimorphodon</i> (Owen). It has the nares enormously large. The middle -holes are also large.</p></div> - -<p>In the Ornithocheiræ the genus is</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p><i>Ornithocheirus</i> (Seeley), in which teeth are prolonged anterior to -the muzzle, and the palate has a longitudinal ridge.</p></div> - -<p>With the osteological illustrations of the Ornithosauria are -arranged some premaxillary bones, which show varieties of form -of the snout. These variations of shape serve easily to indicate -different species. And the following memoranda from those specimens -and other specimens in the drawers form a synopsis of the -species of the Cambridge genera, which may hereafter be fully -elucidated from the copious materials in the series of associated -remains.</p> - - -<p class="caption3">I.</p> - -<div class="fig_left"> -<table summary="location"> -<tr> - <td class="smaller">Case.</td> - <td class="smaller">Comp.</td> - <td class="smaller">Tablet.</td> - <td class="smaller">Specimen.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="smaller"><b>J</b></td> - <td class="smaller"><i>c</i></td> - <td class="smaller">13</td> - <td class="smaller">2</td> -</tr> -</table> -</div> - -<div class="div_center"> -<span class="smcap">Ornithocheirus Sedgwicki</span> (Owen). -</div> - -<p>The fragment is 2<sup>7</sup>/<sub>8</sub>ths inches long, with the elliptical teeth opposite -to each other, 6 on a side on the palate, and one pair in front. -The first three teeth are large; behind these the teeth are about half -the size. The palate is gently convex, with a faint median ridge, -and measures from side to side over the fourth and subsequent -sockets <sup>13</sup>/<sub>16</sub>ths of an inch. The height of the jaw at the fourth -socket 1<sup>1</sup>/<sub>4</sub> inch. The sides converge to an acute rounded rostral -keel. The jaws appear to have been long. The anterior termination -is vascular.</p> - -<p>The rostral keel figured by Owen Pl. <span class="smcap">I</span>, fig. 1 <i>d</i>, in the -1st Supt. <i>Cret. Reptiles</i>, is not square as represented there, but -rounded; the sides converge more acutely, and at the ridge the -keel is not half so wide as the figure makes it. The enormous -size of the third tooth-socket is partly due to the cracked bone -having absorbed more phosphate of lime than it could hold, and -extended the cracks to fissures. The type specimen shows that -there was another pair of sockets in front of, but quite close to, -those which appear to terminate the lower jaw.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_113" id="Page_113">« 113 »</a></span></p> - - -<p class="caption3">II.</p> - -<div class="fig_left"> -<table summary="location"> -<tr> - <td class="smaller">Case.</td> - <td class="smaller">Comp.</td> - <td class="smaller">Tablet.</td> - <td class="smaller">Specimen.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="smaller"><b>J</b></td> - <td class="smaller"><i>c</i></td> - <td class="smaller">15</td> - <td class="smaller">1—3</td> -</tr> -</table> -</div> - -<div class="div_center"> -<span class="smcap">Ornithocheirus Cuvieri</span> (Bowerbank). -</div> - -<p>A portion of a premaxillary bone fractured at both ends, and -two inches long, corresponds with Dr Bowerbank's fossil figured -Pl. <span class="smcap">XXVII.</span> fig. 1, 3, 4, in the Palæontographical volume for 1851. -The palate is just as wide; the median ridge, the same; the teeth -the same in shape and as far apart. The jaw is of the same -depth, but does not deepen so rapidly behind. The only other -difference is that the sockets of the teeth are less prominent on -the sides, and appear to look more directly down.</p> - -<p>The ridge in which the converging sides meet is well rounded -in a dentary bone which may have pertained to this species. In -the space of two inches and a quarter are 5 teeth, the posterior -four extending over two inches, the other pair being in front. -The palatal surface is <sup>3</sup>/<sub>4</sub> of an inch broad behind the third tooth, -and rather more than <sup>5</sup>/<sub>8</sub> of an inch broad behind the fourth tooth. -The length of the 4th or of the 5th sockets is two-thirds that of -the second or third. In front of the 5th tooth, the jaw is an -inch deep, and it tapers in a curve to the anterior end. The teeth -behind the third have interspaces greater than the length of the -sockets; that between the 4th and 5th being <sup>3</sup>/<sub>8</sub> of an inch, while -the socket only measures a quarter of an inch long. Behind the -2nd socket commences the palatal groove, broad in fronts but -narrowing behind; and its sides instead of diverging as in the -type, are concave so as to form a channel like a straightened <i>Siliquaria</i> -shell. The halves of the palate bevel off so as to make a -right angle with each other, and greater angles with the flat sides.</p> - - -<p class="caption3">III.</p> - -<div class="fig_left"> -<table summary="location"> -<tr> - <td class="smaller">Case.</td> - <td class="smaller">Comp.</td> - <td class="smaller">Tablet.</td> - <td class="smaller">Specimen.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="smaller"><b>J</b></td> - <td class="smaller"><i>c6</i></td> - <td class="smaller">35</td> - <td class="smaller">1</td> -</tr> -</table> -</div> - -<div class="div_center"> -<span class="smcap">Ornithocheirus machærorhynchus</span> (Seeley). -</div> - -<p>Dentary bone. Broken at both ends, and wanting all its -teeth, this interesting fossil shows the suture where its whole -length rests on the angular bone which almost reached to the -termination of the beak, quite unlike what is seen in any German -Pterodactyle.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_114" id="Page_114">« 114 »</a></span></p> - -<p>It is a narrow mandible, less than three quarters of an inch -wide, with the alveolar margins parallel. The palatal surface 1<sup>1</sup>/<sub>2</sub> -inch long, is divided into 3 equal strips; the middle one being -a deep glossal groove, slightly narrowing in front, and deepening -behind, made by two inclined flat surfaces. The lateral strips -are horizontal behind, and in front slope a little outward. The -tooth-sockets are oval, directed outward, and as long as the interspaces, -though these seem to get longer behind. In an inch and -a quarter there are four teeth. Below the teeth, the sides of the -jaw are compressed: though nearly parallel at the hinder fracture, -the flattened surfaces approximate in front till they meet -in a sharp keel, which appears to make an acute angle of about -45° with the palate; and below, where the jaw is an inch deep -extends for half an inch in front of the suture with the angular -bone: this suture is straight and irregularly concave, and in an -inch and a quarter approximates to within <sup>5</sup>/<sub>8</sub>ths of an inch of the -palate.</p> - - -<p class="caption3">IV.</p> - -<div class="fig_left"> -<table summary="location"> -<tr> - <td class="smaller">Case.</td> - <td class="smaller">Comp.</td> - <td class="smaller">Tablet.</td> - <td class="smaller">Specimen.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="smaller"><b>J</b></td> - <td class="smaller"><i>c2</i></td> - <td class="smaller">12</td> - <td class="smaller">1</td> -</tr> -</table> -</div> - -<div class="div_center"> -<span class="smcap">Ornithocheirus tenuirostris</span> (Seeley). -</div> - -<p>Middle part of a premaxillary bone fractured behind and in -front, slightly distorted by compression; it is 2<sup>1</sup>/<sub>8</sub>th inches long, and -nearly resembles <i>O. compressirostris</i> (Owen). The palate is about -<sup>1</sup>/<sub>2</sub> an inch wide in front, and <sup>5</sup>/<sub>8</sub>ths of an inch wide behind; it is -compressed mesially into a strong angular keel, between which -and the teeth there is a shallow groove on each side. The groove -dies away behind, and the converging parts of the keel occupy the -whole space between the teeth. The teeth-sockets are small, -elliptical, not opposite to each other, and placed along a distinct -flattened tooth area, which looks downward and outward and -separates the palate from the side of the jaw. The first pair of -sockets preserved are almost <sup>3</sup>/<sub>16</sub>ths of an inch long and <sup>1</sup>/<sub>16</sub>th of -an inch wide. The interspace between that tooth and the next -tooth behind is <sup>7</sup>/<sub>16</sub> of an inch. Separated by similar interspaces, -behind these on one side are two sockets, and on the other -side one socket. The sides are flattened in front, and convex -behind, (making the section of the jaw lanceolate); they are compressed -and round into a narrow rostral keel. The height from the -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_115" id="Page_115">« 115 »</a></span> -palatal ridge to the rostral keel in front is <sup>11</sup>/<sub>16</sub>ths of an inch; -behind it is fractured, but the height was probably <sup>14</sup>/<sub>16</sub>ths of an -inch.</p> - -<p>The palatal keel, distance of the teeth, and proportions of the -jaw, distinguish it from O. compressirostris (Owen).</p> - - - -<p class="caption3">V.</p> - -<div class="fig_left"> -<table summary="location"> -<tr> - <td class="smaller">Case.</td> - <td class="smaller">Comp.</td> - <td class="smaller">Tablet.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="smaller"><b>J</b></td> - <td class="smaller"><i>c</i></td> - <td class="smaller">20</td> -</tr> -</table> -</div> - -<div class="div_center"> -<span class="smcap">Ornithocheirus Oweni</span> (Seeley). -</div> - -<p>The small piece of premaxillary on which this species is -founded indicates a small animal, and nearly resembles the -jaw of <i>O. microdon</i>.</p> - -<p>It is scarcely an inch long; nearly <sup>9</sup>/<sub>16</sub>ths inch high behind, and -nearly <sup>7</sup>/<sub>16</sub>ths of an inch high in front, so that it tapers very rapidly, -and could scarcely have been an inch longer in front.</p> - -<p>The nose is well rounded, but the sides are a little concave, -and become well pinched in in the middle, behind, showing -the near approach as I think to the nostril.</p> - -<p>The palate half an inch broad, is divided into two concave -channels by the strong and sharp median ridge, which projects -below the alveolar margins. The dental margins are not rounded -as in <i>C. microdon</i>, but flattened, making more than a right -angle with both the outer side-wall and palate. The interspaces -between the teeth are rough, looking as though they had supported -minute teeth. The alveolar margin is a tenth of an inch -wide; along it are the perfectly circular sockets, a sixteenth of an -inch in diameter. There are 3 sockets between <sup>5</sup>/<sub>8</sub> of an inch, -so that they are separated by 3 times their diameter. The -palate is obliquely impressed with blood-vessels running forward -to the teeth from the median ridge.</p> - -<p>The points in which this jaw differs from that of <i>O. -microdon</i> are that in this species the teeth are circular instead -of being oval; that the interspaces here are as long as in that -species, though this jaw is only two-thirds the width; that -instead of having a sharp keel on the upper surface, this has -a well rounded roof. That though the jaw is scarcely higher -than it is wide, it shows strong furrows running up to the -nares, while in <i>O. microdon</i>, though the proportions are the -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_116" id="Page_116">« 116 »</a></span> -same, the sides are perfectly flat without trace of pinching in, -while the line of the nasal opening is indicated by a faint -furrow running all along the jaw. And lastly it differs in -size, which, where the sutures are lost, may be important in -discriminating forms.</p> - - -<p class="caption3">VI.</p> - -<div class="fig_left"> -<table summary="location"> -<tr> - <td class="smaller">Case.</td> - <td class="smaller">Comp.</td> - <td class="smaller">Tablet.</td> - <td class="smaller">Specimen.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="smaller"><b>J</b></td> - <td class="smaller"><i>c</i></td> - <td class="smaller">29</td> - <td class="smaller">1—2</td> -</tr> -</table> -</div> - -<div class="div_center"> -<span class="smcap">Ornithocheirus microdon</span> (Seeley). -</div> - -<p>Premaxillary bone. The fossil is nearly 1<sup>3</sup>/<sub>4</sub>ths inch long, and at -the proximal end, where it is less than <sup>3</sup>/<sub>4</sub>ths of an inch high, has flat -sides, which converge to form a keel which is depressed anteriorly -and rounded so that where fractured in front the bone is <sup>7</sup>/<sub>16</sub>ths of -an inch deep. The palatal surface contains two wide concave channels, -between which descends a sharp median ridge, which behind -becomes more prominent than the alveolar border.</p> - -<p>The palate is <sup>5</sup>/<sub>8</sub>ths of an inch wide. The alveolar margins are -compressed and rounded. The small tooth-sockets are oval, and -four are contained in 1<sup>1</sup>/<sub>8</sub>th inch; they look downward.</p> - -<p>There is a small tip of a jaw associated with this fossil, which -is so like that it might be part of the bone broken off before -fossilization. It corresponds in every way except that the teeth -are closer. In this terminal lanceolate fragment there are in <sup>5</sup>/<sub>8</sub>ths -of an inch four teeth. The snout is terminated by two, which are -close together.</p> - - -<p class="caption3">VII.</p> - -<p class="center"><span class="smcap">Ornithocheirus Huxleyi</span> (Seeley).</p> - -<p>The only specimen of this species yet known is the greater -part of a dentary bone contained in the Museum of the Geological -Survey. An inch and <sup>1</sup>/<sub>4</sub> long and <sup>3</sup>/<sub>4</sub>ths of an inch wide, it is less -than half an inch deep: the sides slowly converge towards the -front, and it appears to have had an obtusely lanceolate beak. -The under surface is convex, too inflated for trace of a keel, and -tapers to the end of the beak, which, with the left alveolar margin -is abraded. The palatal surface is smooth at its front end, but -two diverging ridges soon arise and form the boundary of a posteriorly -deepening mesial channel, which is a quarter of an inch -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_117" id="Page_117">« 117 »</a></span> -wide at the fracture. These ridges too, which are parallel with -the compressed and rounded alveolar margins, convert the lateral -spaces into shallow channels. The right side shows the sockets -of 3 small oval teeth separated by interspaces wider than teeth. -A tooth and two interspaces measure <sup>7</sup>/<sub>16</sub>ths of an inch.</p> - -<p>The only cretaceous Pterodactyle which this at all resembles -is <i>O. microdon</i>, but the palate is wider than in that species; the -sides converge towards each other more rapidly, as though it -belonged to a species with a shorter snout.</p> - -<p>I am indebted to Prof. Huxley for the opportunity of making -a notice of this species.</p> - - -<p class="caption3">VIII.</p> - -<div class="fig_left"> -<table summary="location"> -<tr> - <td class="smaller">Case.</td> - <td class="smaller">Comp.</td> - <td class="smaller">Series.</td> - <td class="smaller">Specimen.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="smaller"><b>J</b></td> - <td class="smaller"><i>c2</i></td> - <td class="smaller">13</td> - <td class="smaller">1</td> -</tr> -</table> -</div> - -<div class="div_center"> -<span class="smcap">Ornithocheirus oxyrhinus</span> (Seeley). -</div> - -<p>This well-marked species is a portion of a premaxillary bone -1<sup>1</sup>/<sub>4</sub> inch long, fractured behind and in front. The palate is half -an inch wide; its two halves are inclined to each other at a considerable -angle, and where they meet form a more prominent keel. -The tooth-sockets look more outward than downward, are nearly -circular, separated by interspaces as long as the sockets; three -sockets and two interspaces measure one inch. The jaw is about -<sup>5</sup>/<sub>8</sub>ths of an inch high in front, and about <sup>1</sup>/<sub>16</sub>th of an inch higher -behind. The sides are flat and converge like the sides of a wedge -to a sharp rostral keel.</p> - - -<p class="caption3">IX.</p> - -<p class="center"><span class="smcap">Ornithocheirus xyphorhynchus</span> (Seeley).</p> - -<p>I have seen but one example of this form. It has lost -much of the outer layer of bone, and shows on the sides impressions -like tooth-marks from an eater of Pterodactyles. A -groove which has some appearance of being due to fracture -traverses each side, but the specimen is symmetrical, and has -its characters in no way changed by the accident.</p> - -<p>It is a portion of a lower jaw of a long-beaked Pterodactyle -of the <i>O. Sedgwicki</i> type, with parallel sides, and the rounded -basal ridge nearly parallel with the palate.</p> - -<p>The fragment is two inches long, showing four large and -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_118" id="Page_118">« 118 »</a></span> -obliquely set sockets in If inch. The tooth-sockets are on the -outer two-thirds of the palate, and looked forward, upward, and -outward The interspaces each measure <sup>5</sup>/<sub>16</sub>ths of an inch.</p> - -<p>Each half of the palatal surface which is <sup>5</sup>/<sub>16</sub> of an inch wide, -inclines to the other half at a right angle, being parted by a -narrow groove; the diameter of the jaw is half an inch.</p> - -<p>The depth of the jaw is <sup>5</sup>/<sub>8</sub>ths of an inch in front, and <sup>3</sup>/<sub>4</sub>ths of -an inch behind. The sides are flat and approximate below to a -sharp keel. This species is one of many in the collection of W. -Reed, Esq. of York, kindly placed in my hands for the elucidation -of those in the Woodwardian Museum.</p> - - -<p class="caption3">X.</p> - - -<div class="fig_left"> -<table summary="location"> -<tr> - <td class="smaller">Case.</td> - <td class="smaller">Comp.</td> - <td class="smaller">Tablet.</td> - <td class="smaller">Specimen.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="smaller"><b>J</b></td> - <td class="smaller"><i>c</i></td> - <td class="smaller">14</td> - <td class="smaller">1, 2</td> -</tr> -</table> -</div> - -<div class="div_center"> -<span class="smcap">Ornithocheirus Fittoni</span> (Owen). -</div> - -<p>The fragment is 1<sup>1</sup>/<sub>2</sub> inch long, with two large elliptical tooth-sockets -on each side of the flattened palate, and one pair in front. -The third socket is separated from the fourth by a considerable -interspace. Between the third sockets arises the median palatal -ridge, and from the inner margin of each socket a lateral ridge -appears to be continued. Behind the third socket the jaw measures -<sup>11</sup>/<sub>16</sub>ths of an inch from side to side, and <sup>10</sup>/<sub>16</sub>ths of an inch -high. The sides converge and round convexly into each other. -The jaws appear to have been long; It is only known by upper -jaws. The type specimen shows the socket of another tooth in -front of the last one figured by Prof. Owen. It is directed outward -at a greater angle, and separated from the hinder one by -a wall not <sup>1</sup>/<sub>16</sub>th of an inch thick, and the teeth of this pair must -have been parted from each other by a film equally thin. There -is no truncation of the snout as in <i>O. Woodwardi</i>.</p> - -<p>Another specimen shows some variations. This fragment of -a premaxillary bone is fractured through the third pair of tooth-sockets -in front and through the seventh pair behind. It is about -2<sup>1</sup>/<sub>8</sub>th inches long; the palate is <sup>11</sup>/<sub>16</sub>ths of an inch wide behind the -great tooth, and maintains the same width. The jaw is <sup>11</sup>/<sub>16</sub>ths of -an inch high behind, and <sup>10</sup>/<sub>16</sub>ths high in front. The sides are -gently convex, and imperceptibly unite to form the well-rounded -depressed mesial ridge of the beak. From the front of the third -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_119" id="Page_119">« 119 »</a></span> -to the back of the fifth socket measures 1<sup>3</sup>/<sub>8</sub>ths inch. The sockets -are ovate, rather smaller, and closer together than in the type of -<i>O. Fittoni</i>; margins elevated. The variations from types are so -many, and often so considerable, as to suggest the idea that the -fossil groups called species may in the living animals have often -been genera.</p> - -<p>In all the specimens the end of the palate is a little reflected -upward.</p> - - -<p class="caption3">XI.</p> - -<div class="fig_left"> -<table summary="location"> -<tr> - <td class="smaller">Case.</td> - <td class="smaller">Comp.</td> - <td class="smaller">Series.</td> - <td class="smaller">Specimen.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="smaller"><b>J</b></td> - <td class="smaller"><i>c1</i></td> - <td class="smaller">9</td> - <td class="smaller">1</td> -</tr> -</table> -</div> - -<div class="div_center"> -<span class="smcap">Ornithocheirus dentatus</span> (Seeley). -</div> - -<p>A fragment of premaxillary bone two inches long, fractured -behind the socket for the seventh tooth. It most nearly resembles -<i>O. Sedgwicki</i> and <i>O. Cuvieri</i>. Behind the second tooth the -palate is <sup>1</sup>/<sub>2</sub> an inch wide; behind the sixth socket it is <sup>5</sup>/<sub>8</sub>ths of an -inch wide; the distance between these points is nearly 1<sup>1</sup>/<sub>2</sub> inch. -The palate is flattened, with a sharp slight mesial keel and a wide -concave channel on each side which dies away in front. The first -pair of teeth are in front of the snout, rather small, and look forward. -In this specimen the large third tooth is not developed on -the left side. The second and third sockets are large and close -together; the succeeding teeth are parted from each other by -interspaces equal to their own diameter. They are gibbously elliptical. -The sides of the jaw are gently convex from above downward; -they round into each other to form a narrow rostral keel. -Behind the second socket the jaw is <sup>1</sup>/<sub>2</sub> an inch high; behind the -sixth it is nearly <sup>7</sup>/<sub>8</sub>ths of an inch high.</p> - -<p>The grooved and relatively wider palate, and the relatively -smaller teeth, abundantly distinguish this species from <i>O. Sedgwicki</i> -(Owen).</p> - -<p>The smaller, more circular teeth, placed closer together, distinguish -it from <i>O. Cuvieri</i> (Bowerbank).</p> - - - -<p class="caption3">XII.</p> - -<div class="fig_left"> -<table summary="location"> -<tr> - <td class="smaller">Case.</td> - <td class="smaller">Comp.</td> - <td class="smaller">Tablet.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="smaller"><b>J</b></td> - <td class="smaller"><i>c</i></td> - <td class="smaller">22</td> -</tr> -</table> -</div> - -<div class="div_center"> -<span class="smcap">Ornithocheirus scaphorynchus</span> (Seeley). -</div> - -<p>This fragment of premaxillary bone is 1<sup>1</sup>/<sub>2</sub> inch long. The -palate is <sup>1</sup>/<sub>2</sub> an inch wide behind, and the jaw is rather more than -<sup>1</sup>/<sub>2</sub> an inch high; behind the second tooth it is nearly <sup>5</sup>/<sub>8</sub>ths of an -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_120" id="Page_120">« 120 »</a></span> -inch high. The sides converge superiorly to form a well-rounded -keel. The palate is flattened, with a slightly elevated blunt median -keel. There appears to be a pair of small teeth in front of the -snout as usual, and six on the palate, with an indication of another -at the posterior fracture. The teeth are of moderate size and -almost circular. In the form of the bone it is readily distinguished -from all the species enumerated.</p> - - - -<p class="caption3">XIII.</p> - -<div class="fig_left"> -<table summary="location"> -<tr> - <td class="smaller">Case.</td> - <td class="smaller">Comp.</td> - <td class="smaller">Series.</td> - <td class="smaller">Specimen.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="smaller"><b>J</b></td> - <td class="smaller"><i>c6</i></td> - <td class="smaller">32</td> - <td class="smaller">1</td> -</tr> -</table> -</div> - -<div class="div_center"> -<span class="smcap">Ornithocheirus platystomus</span> (Seeley). -</div> - -<p>An ill-preserved fragment fractured in front and behind, yet -indicating a distinct species. The palate is flat, with the faintest -median ridge, and the sides are flat and round into a narrow -rostral keel, which in front approximates rapidly towards the -palate. The first pair of sockets are missing; what appears to be -the second pair are about <sup>1</sup>/<sub>8</sub>th of an inch long, separated from the -pair behind by an interspace of <sup>1</sup>/<sub>4</sub>th of an inch. These are ovate -and less than <sup>1</sup>/<sub>4</sub>th of an inch long, and separated from the next -pair by an interspace of not less than <sup>1</sup>/<sub>4</sub>th of an inch. The height -of the jaw over the first pair of sockets preserved is <sup>9</sup>/<sub>16</sub>ths of an -inch; over the second pair it is <sup>14</sup>/<sub>16</sub>ths of an inch; the space -between these points is <sup>9</sup>/<sub>16</sub>ths of an inch. Behind the second pair -of teeth the palate is nearly <sup>5</sup>/<sub>8</sub>ths of an inch wide.</p> - -<p>The only species which it resembles is <i>O. brachyrhinus</i>, but -differs from that in the flatter, narrower palate, which makes a -greater angle with the rostral keel, and in the smaller teeth, -which are separated by wider interspaces.</p> - - - -<p class="caption3">XIV.</p> - -<div class="fig_left"> -<table summary="location"> -<tr> - <td class="smaller">Case.</td> - <td class="smaller">Comp.</td> - <td class="smaller">Series.</td> - <td class="smaller">Specimen.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="smaller"><b>J</b></td> - <td class="smaller"><i>c2</i></td> - <td class="smaller">11</td> - <td class="smaller">1</td> -</tr> -</table> -</div> - -<div class="div_center"> -<span class="smcap">Ornithocheirus nasutus</span> (Seeley). -</div> - -<p>A fragment of a premaxillary bone 6 inches long. It somewhat -resembles <i>O. Cuvieri</i> in the aspect of the palate, but the jaw -is more elongated, and expands from side to side at the anterior -end. The teeth are opposite to each other in front, but become -irregular after the sixth. The palate measures behind the second -pair of sockets <sup>3</sup>/<sub>4</sub>ths of an inch, behind the third pair it is a sixteenth -of an inch wider, behind the ninth pair half an inch, and in the -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_121" id="Page_121">« 121 »</a></span> -last two inches it begins to widen again. A sharp keel arises -behind the second pair of sockets and becomes more prominent to -behind the tenth pair, when the channel which accompanies it on -each side seems to disappear. The first pair of teeth, which look -forward, is smaller than the second and third pairs; they are closer -together than those which follow. The third sockets are <sup>7</sup>/<sub>8</sub>ths of -an inch from the tip of the snout. Then follow three smaller, -more circular teeth, which are separated from each other by interspaces -as long as the sockets. The back of the sixth sockets are -2<sup>1</sup>/<sub>4</sub> inches from the tip of the snout. Then follow two larger -more elliptical sockets; after which the sockets become smaller -and are separated by longer distances, that between the 10th and -11th pairs is nearly <sup>3</sup>/<sub>4</sub>ths of an inch.</p> - -<p>The height of the jaw behind the second pair of sockets is <sup>5</sup>/<sub>8</sub>ths -of an inch, behind the sixth sockets <sup>15</sup>/<sub>16</sub>ths, behind the tenth sockets -1<sup>1</sup>/<sub>4</sub> inch. In front, the nose has the aspect of being compressed -from above downward, and behind it is compressed from side to -side. The sides are flattened and round into a narrow rostral -ridge which is depressed at the anterior end.</p> - - - -<p class="caption3">XV.</p> - -<div class="fig_left"> -<table summary="location"> -<tr> - <td class="smaller">Case.</td> - <td class="smaller">Comp.</td> - <td class="smaller">Tablet.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="smaller"><b>J</b></td> - <td class="smaller"><i>c</i></td> - <td class="smaller">21</td> -</tr> -</table> -</div> - -<div class="div_center"> -<span class="smcap">Ornithocheirus polyodon</span> (Seeley), -</div> - -<p>This species is founded on the anterior end of a premaxillary -bone; in form not unlike <i>O. Fittoni</i>. It is <sup>5</sup>/<sub>8</sub>ths of an inch wide; -the lateral margins approximate very slowly, and in front it -appears to be truncated. It is an inch and a quarter long, and -in that space were on each side six large round teeth, almost as -close together as they could be, five on the palate and a pair in -front. The terminal two are no wider apart than the rest, and -point more forward. A moderate, sharp, median ridge descends -in the flattened palate, making its lateral halves a little concave. -The front termination of the palate is slightly reflected upward. -The jaw, which is <sup>1</sup>/<sub>2</sub> an inch deep behind, tapers to its termination -more rapidly than does <i>O. Fittoni</i>. The flat sides similarly converge, -and form a well-rounded ridge, which does not get blunter -in front. From their close approximation, it results that the -tooth-sockets are entirely above the palatal surface, so that they -are better seen from the side of the jaw than from the palate.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_122" id="Page_122">« 122 »</a></span></p> - -<p>It is a clearly marked species, as well distinguished from -<i>O. Fittoni</i> by the closeness of its teeth, as <i>O. Sedgwicki</i> is from -<i>O. Cuvieri</i>.</p> - - -<p class="caption3">XVI.</p> - -<div class="fig_left"> -<table summary="location"> -<tr> - <td class="smaller">Case.</td> - <td class="smaller">Comp.</td> - <td class="smaller">Series.</td> - <td class="smaller">Tablet.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="smaller"><b>J</b></td> - <td class="smaller"><i>c5</i></td> - <td class="smaller">28</td> - <td class="smaller">1</td> -</tr> -</table> -</div> - -<div class="div_center"> -<span class="smcap">Ornithocheirus denticulatus</span> (Seeley). -</div> - -<p>This is a species which can only be confounded with O. polyodon. -It is a fragment of premaxillary bone 1<sup>3</sup>/<sub>4</sub> inch long, fractured -through the seventh socket. It differs from O. polyodon in -having larger teeth, which are wider apart, look more downward, -have a narrower palatal interspace between each pair, and a rostral -keel, which is more compressed from side to side behind and from -above downward in front, and makes a greater angle with the -palate.</p> - -<p>The sockets are more uniform in size and closer together than -usual, the second and third pairs being but slightly larger than -the others; all are broadly elliptical. The palatal keel becomes -sharp and prominent behind the fourth sockets. Behind the -second pair of sockets the height of the jaw is nearly <sup>7</sup>/<sub>16</sub>ths of an -inch, behind the fourth sockets the height is <sup>10</sup>/<sub>16</sub>ths of an inch; the -distance between these points is about <sup>10</sup>/<sub>16</sub>ths of an inch.</p> - - -<p class="caption3">XVII.</p> - -<div class="fig_left"> -<table summary="location"> -<tr> - <td class="smaller">Case.</td> - <td class="smaller">Comp.</td> - <td class="smaller">Series.</td> - <td class="smaller">Tablet.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="smaller"><b>J</b></td> - <td class="smaller"><i>c1</i></td> - <td class="smaller">2</td> - <td class="smaller">2</td> -</tr> -</table> -</div> - -<div class="div_center"> -<span class="smcap">Ornithocheirus crassidens</span> (Seeley). -</div> - -<p>This is a fragment of a ?premaxillary bone, fractured behind -through the socket for the fourth tooth. It approximates to O. -colorhinus, but differs chiefly in the nose not extending in front of -the first pair of teeth; in there not being any lunate area above -the first pair of teeth; in there being but one tooth in front, which -is relatively large; in the socket for the fourth tooth being quite -close to that for the third tooth, and in the palatal sockets looking -much more outward. The nose also appears to be better rounded.</p> - -<p>The fragment is 1<sup>7</sup>/<sub>8</sub> inch long. The second and third sockets, -with their interspace, measure 1<sup>1</sup>/<sub>8</sub> inch. On the opposite side -the first socket is intermediate in position between the first and -second.</p> - -<p>Though not likely, it is just possible that this might be the -premaxillary bone of O. eurygnathus.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_123" id="Page_123">« 123 »</a></span></p> - - -<p class="caption3">XVIII.</p> - -<div class="fig_left"> -<table summary="location"> -<tr> - <td class="smaller">Case.</td> - <td class="smaller">Comp.</td> - <td class="smaller">Tablet.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="smaller"><b>J</b></td> - <td class="smaller"><i>c</i></td> - <td class="smaller">24</td> -</tr> -</table> -</div> - -<div class="div_center"> -<span class="smcap">Ornithocheirus brachyrhinus</span> (Seeley). -</div> - -<p>This fragment of a premaxillaiy bone is fractured behind the -sockets for the third pair of teeth. It is 1<sup>1</sup>/<sub>8</sub> inch long, and shows -one pair of small teeth in front and two pairs of large ovate -teeth on the palate. The first pair are divided from each other -and from the second pair by films of bone; and the second pair -are separated from the third by rather more than half the length, -of the third socket. Behind the third pair of sockets the palate -is <sup>5</sup>/<sub>8</sub>ths of an inch wide; it is flattened, and has a blunt moderately -elevated mesial ridge. Behind the second pair of sockets -the jaw is <sup>5</sup>/<sub>8</sub>ths of an inch high; behind the third pair of sockets -it is <sup>3</sup>/<sub>4</sub>ths of an inch high; the distance between the places of -measurement is <sup>1</sup>/<sub>2</sub> an inch. The sides are flat and converge to -a rounded nose. The jaw is rounded from side to side in front, -and the outline of the top of the nose rounds over the blunt -termination of the snout above the teeth on to the palate.</p> - -<p>In the shortness of the nose it somewhat resembles the <i>?P. -giganteus</i> (Bowerbank), but the jaw attenuates less rapidly, is -truncated, and has larger teeth.</p> - - -<p class="caption3">XIX.</p> - -<div class="fig_left"> -<table summary="location"> -<tr> - <td class="smaller">Case.</td> - <td class="smaller">Comp.</td> - <td class="smaller">Tablet.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="smaller"><b>J</b></td> - <td class="smaller"><i>c</i></td> - <td class="smaller">25</td> -</tr> -</table> -</div> - -<div class="div_center"> -<span class="smcap">Ornithocheirus enchorhynchus</span> (Seeley). -</div> - -<p>This species nearly resembles <i>O. brachyrhinus,</i> from which it -differs in larger size, with a relatively wider palate, which is -without a keel, and in a larger front pair of teeth. It approximates -towards <i>O, colorhinus</i>, but is smaller, and wants the rugose -lunate area over the front pair of teeth characteristic of that -species. There are many varieties or species nearly related to -this type, but from their imperfect preservation and the small -part of the head which they represent, it is not possible to give -descriptions of them.</p> - - -<p class="caption3">XX.</p> - -<div class="fig_left"> -<table summary="location"> -<tr> - <td class="smaller">Case.</td> - <td class="smaller">Comp.</td> - <td class="smaller">Series.</td> - <td class="smaller">Tablet.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="smaller"><b>J</b></td> - <td class="smaller"><i>c3</i></td> - <td class="smaller">16</td> - <td class="smaller">1</td> -</tr> -</table> -</div> - -<div class="div_center"> -<span class="smcap">Ornithocheirus eurygnathus</span> (Seeley). -</div> - -<p>A fragment of a ?dentary bone, fractured behind through the -socket for the third tooth. The sockets are nearly circular. It -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_124" id="Page_124">« 124 »</a></span> -measures about an inch long,, and behind the socket for the second -tooth 1<sup>3</sup>/<sub>4</sub> inch high. The sides of the jaw are gently concave from -above downward, having a pinched aspect and approximating; -they round into a narrow rostral ridge, 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 sockets. The first pair of sockets are -nearly as large as the second, and from the steep incline of the -jaw look more than usually upward; they are <sup>7</sup>/<sub>16</sub>ths of an inch -long, are separated from each other by an interspace of <sup>6</sup>/<sub>16</sub> ths, and -from the second sockets by an interspace of more than <sup>1</sup>/<sub>8</sub>th of an -inch, while the second socket is separated from the third by about -<sup>1</sup>/<sub>4</sub>th of an inch. The palatal space between the second pair is -about <sup>3</sup>/<sub>4</sub>ths of an inch.</p> - - -<p class="caption3">XXI.</p> - -<div class="fig_left"> -<table summary="location"> -<tr> - <td class="smaller">Case.</td> - <td class="smaller">Comp.</td> - <td class="smaller">Tablet.</td> - <td class="smaller">Specimen.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="smaller"><b>J</b></td> - <td class="smaller"><i>c</i></td> - <td class="smaller">17</td> - <td class="smaller">1, 2</td> -</tr> -</table> -</div> - -<div class="div_center"> -<span class="smcap">Ornithocheirus colorhinus</span> (Seeley). -</div> - -<p>Fragments of premaxillary bones. The largest portion is 2<sup>1</sup>/<sub>2</sub> -inches long, and is fractured behind the socket for the fourth -tooth, and the upper part of the nose is also broken away. The -palate is flattened, with the median part slightly convex. The -sides of the jaw converge upward, but not rapidly; in front they -round into each other, but there is a slight mesial depression. -The front pair of teeth are large, separated from each other and -from the second pair by films of bone. Above the first pair of -sockets, so as to look downward and forward, is an impressed -lunate area <sup>9</sup>/<sub>16</sub>ths of an inch wide and <sup>5</sup>/<sub>16</sub>ths of an inch high, to -which a soft lip may have been attached. This area is in the -same plane with the first pair of teeth and at right angles with the -upper outline of the nose. The sockets of the first pair of teeth -are a little smaller than the second pair; they are both about half -an inch in diameter and nearly circular. An interspace of <sup>3</sup>/<sub>16</sub>ths -of an inch separates the second socket from the third. The tooth -is elliptical, the socket being narrower and longer than that of the -second. The palatal interspace between the third pair is more -than <sup>3</sup>/<sub>4</sub>ths of an inch. The interspace between the third and fourth -sockets is about <sup>3</sup>/<sub>8</sub>ths of an inch. The diameter of the nearly -circular fourth socket is <sup>1</sup>/<sub>4</sub>th of an inch.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_125" id="Page_125">« 125 »</a></span></p> - -<p>The overhanging lunate lip space, with the size of the teeth -and width of the palate, abundantly distinguish this species.</p> - - - -<p class="caption3">XXII.</p> - -<div class="fig_left"> -<table summary="location"> -<tr> - <td class="smaller">Case.</td> - <td class="smaller">Comp.</td> - <td class="smaller">Tablet.</td> - <td class="smaller">Specimen.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="smaller"><b>J</b></td> - <td class="smaller"><i>c</i></td> - <td class="smaller">18</td> - <td class="smaller">1—4</td> -</tr> -</table> -</div> - -<div class="div_center"> -<span class="smcap">Ornithocheirus woodwardi</span> (Owen). -</div> - -<p>I regard the fragment on which this species was founded -as being the terminal end, and not a section of a jaw; partly -from the rounding of the lateral surfaces to the front, and -chiefly from the snapped off teeth in the middle of the truncated -anterior end, for they are smaller than the pair behind them, -and look forward at a greater angle, so that the converging -sockets of both pairs meet behind. These characters are well -shown in Mr Dinkel's excellent figure, Pl. <span class="smcap">II.</span> fig. 3<i>a</i>. Second Sup. -Palæont. The palate is destroyed, and gives no clue to the -bone being either lower or upper.</p> - -<p>Another specimen, rather smaller, shows the rostrum well -rounded; the front is truncated at right angles to it: there is -the same rounding of its lower part into the sides, and the stumps -of the front pair of teeth are visible though they are again worn -level with the rugose front of the snout.</p> - -<p>But the finest fragment of this species is a rostral end, (perhaps -of the upper jaw) three inches long, two inches deep, and with the -palate as wide. It indicates 5 teeth on a side: the front pair -small, 2nd and 3rd much larger, and two pairs behind, which -are smaller. The palate is flat, and attains its greatest width -at the third tooth, behind which it contracts noticeably. The -third tooth is more than half an inch in diameter, the fourth -is <sup>5</sup>/<sub>16</sub>ths of an inch long. The spaces between teeth seem equal to -the long diameter of the sockets, which are oval and straight. -The sides round into the front of the muzzle more gradually in -this specimen than in the others. An impressed line runs -along the median ridge of the upper surface. Just as the jaw -gets narrower behind, so the well-rounded upper surface becomes -more acute behind.</p> - -<p>Behind the third socket the palate measures 1<sup>7</sup>/<sub>8</sub> inch from side -to side, and the jaw is there nearly 2 inches high.</p> - -<p>This is the most massive Pterodactyle jaw known. In the -recent state it may have indicated a creature sufficiently distinguished -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_126" id="Page_126">« 126 »</a></span> -from those to which the smaller fossils belonged, -but now the divergence of characters is so slight as to be for -zoological purposes of no value.</p> - -<p>It is related to O. Fittoni; the chief points of difference -being the truncated muzzle, the compression behind the third -tooth, the much sharper (?) dorsal ridge, and the large size of -the head.</p> - - -<p class="caption3">XXIII.</p> - -<div class="fig_left"> -<table summary="location"> -<tr> - <td class="smaller">Case.</td> - <td class="smaller">Comp.</td> - <td class="smaller">Series.</td> - <td class="smaller">Tablet.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="smaller"><b>J</b></td> - <td class="smaller"><i>c3</i></td> - <td class="smaller">14</td> - <td class="smaller">1</td> -</tr> -</table> -</div> - -<div class="div_center"> -<span class="smcap">Ornithocheirus capito</span> (Seeley). -</div> - -<p>A fragment of premaxillary bone, well distinguished from -every other specimen, except one in the collection of Mr Reed of -York, which is here named <i>O. Reedi</i>. It is a large head, with -larger teeth than any known species. The jaw is truncated in -front, with a rugose vertical area in front reaching 1<sup>3</sup>/<sub>4</sub> inch high -from the palate, on which the usual front pair of teeth are not -seen. At the angle of this front area with the palate is a large -elliptical tooth <sup>9</sup>/<sub>16</sub>ths of an inch wide, and behind it, with an -interspace of <sup>3</sup>/<sub>16</sub>ths of an inch, is a socket measuring <sup>10</sup>/<sub>16</sub>ths of an -inch in length; the next interspace is about <sup>1</sup>/<sub>8</sub>th of an inch, and -the next nearly circular socket is <sup>5</sup>/<sub>16</sub>ths long; then another interspace -of <sup>1</sup>/<sub>8</sub>th of an inch, and another and a smaller tooth. The -palate appears to have been channelled. The sides of the jaw are -flat, or slightly concave, and where fractured above, are 3 inches -high. Above the rugose vertical area of the snout, is an area, -concave from back to front, reaching up to the rostral keel; it is -flat from side to side behind, and convex from side to side in -front. So much as is preserved measures 1<sup>3</sup>/<sub>4</sub> inch in length, and -appears to be relatively narrower than in O. Reedi.</p> - - - -<p class="caption3">XXIV.</p> - -<p class="center"><span class="smcap">Ornithocheirus Reedi</span> (Seeley).</p> - -<p>The anterior part of an upper jaw has flattened slightly -concave sides, which converge above so as to form boundaries -of (1) a flat triangular area which looks anteriorly, and of (2) -an oblong area, traversed by a mesial groove, which looks upward -and forward and is concave from back to front. In the lower -half of the truncated triangular anterior termination are the -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_127" id="Page_127">« 127 »</a></span> -remains of the stumps of the two anterior teeth; they are oval in -outline, <sup>9</sup>/<sub>16</sub>ths of an inch high, and <sup>7</sup>/<sub>16</sub>ths of an inch wide; they are -parted by an interspace nearly <sup>1</sup>/<sub>4</sub> of an inch wide, which becomes -concave vertically as it rounds on to the palatal surface. All the -front triangular surface above the teeth is rough: its entire height -is about 1<sup>1</sup>/<sub>4</sub> inch, and is nearly as wide across the base. The -side rounds a little into the concave median upper surface, and -into the triangular front; so much as is preserved measures 2<sup>1</sup>/<sub>2</sub> -inches high, and 1<sup>3</sup>/<sub>8</sub> inch long. The palatal surface, which is very -small and badly preserved, is 1<sup>3</sup>/<sub>4</sub> inch wide behind, but gives no -indication of further widening. On its outer border are seen two -large circular teeth <sup>5</sup>/<sub>8</sub>ths of an inch in diameter; they are separated -by a median palatal interspace of <sup>7</sup>/<sub>8</sub>ths of an inch. Where -it is fractured behind, the specimen shows the sockets of another -pair of teeth behind these, with an interspace of <sup>1</sup>/<sub>4</sub> of an inch in -the antero-posterior direction. The palate is convex.</p> - -<p>The superior oblong area is concave in length as well as -transversely. It makes a great angle with the triangular front -of which it is the upward continuation; so much as is preserved -extends 1<sup>1</sup>/<sub>2</sub> inch in length; it is about <sup>1</sup>/<sub>2</sub> an inch wide.</p> - -<p>I am indebted to W. Reed, Esq. of York, for the opportunity -of making a notice of this species, which closely resembles <i>O. -capito</i>.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>The species which follow were separated in the "Index to the Ornithosauria," -&c. as a different genus. That proposal might still be sustained, for -these massive truncated jaws are unlike the spear-shaped jaws of many of the -species. And to the minds of some readers the forms already described will -arrange themselves in groups which not improbably indicate genera. But a -re-examination of the type <i>Pterodactylus simus</i> (Owen) has convinced me that -it is a <i>lower jaw</i>, and therefore it affords no evidence of the presence or absence -of the peculiar front premaxillary teeth which characterize nearly all the Cretaceous -species.</p></div> - - -<p class="caption3">XXV.</p> - -<div class="fig_left"> -<table summary="location"> -<tr> - <td class="smaller">Case.</td> - <td class="smaller">Comp.</td> - <td class="smaller">Specimen.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="smaller"><b>J</b></td> - <td class="smaller"><i>c</i></td> - <td class="smaller"><i>c</i></td> - <td class="smaller">16</td> -</tr> -</table> -</div> - -<div class="div_center"> -<span class="smcap">Ornithocheirus simus</span> (Owen). -</div> - -<p>The palate is 2<sup>3</sup>/<sub>4</sub> inches long, and at the second pair of teeth -about <sup>7</sup>/<sub>8</sub>ths of an inch wide. It is fractured at the end through -the fifth socket, and at the side along the palatal groove. The -first pair of teeth is smaller and closer together than the others. -The palatal interspace between the second pair is <sup>3</sup>/<sub>8</sub>ths of an inch; -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_128" id="Page_128">« 128 »</a></span> -between the third pair, which are large teeth, it is <sup>1</sup>/<sub>2</sub> an inch. -The sockets are sub-circular, and are not separated from each -other by wider interspaces than their own length. In front is a -long triangular rugose area, convex from above downward, a distance -of 1<sup>1</sup>/<sub>2</sub> inch; and concave from side to side, a width above of -rather more than <sup>1</sup>/<sub>2</sub> an inch. Below this the flattened sides converge -to a blunt keel; where, fractured, the jaw is 2<sup>1</sup>/<sub>2</sub> inches deep. -There are several fragments of species allied to the last; one -has the triangular area in front very small, only half as high as -in the type and very narrow, for the sides are gently rounded -into it. It is marked by short longitudinal furrows, impressed -vessels I think, while in O. simus the surface is irregularly rough. -The first pair of teeth are much larger than in O. simus; they -are longer, more conical, and circular, and separated by as wide a -space as the second pair. There is not much to found a species on, -but as it appears to be quite distinct from O. simus, it is named -<i>O. Carteri</i>. Another fragment, with the area very long, is marked -<i>O. platyrhinus</i>. But a sufficiency of species has been indicated to -make known the Ornithosaurian fauna of the Cambridge Greensand. -And the detailed description of critical types and of the -other parts of the skeletons is beyond the general osteology of the -tribe, and will rather belong to a memoir in which this flock of -Pterodactyles will be restored to their living forms.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>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 Wight. -It appears to indicate a distinct species. It is 2<sup>1</sup>/<sub>2</sub> inches long, and shows three -large teeth still preserved in their sockets. The extreme width outside the -third pair of sockets is nearly 2 inches. The sides, which are slightly concave -from above downward, converge so as to give the broken end a triangular -outline. In front is a small sub-triangular area, deeply scored with vascular -markings; below this the outline slopes obliquely backward, and the two sides -there round convexly into each other. The first socket is <sup>7</sup>/<sub>16</sub>ths of an inch -long, the tooth coarsely striated, and like the others elliptical; the interspace -between the first and the second teeth is <sup>5</sup>/<sub>16</sub>ths of an inch. The second tooth, -probably immature, is an inch in length, smooth, and like the third traversed -in front and behind by a slight lateral ridge; at the base it measures <sup>5</sup>/<sub>16</sub>ths of -an inch from front to back. The third tooth is rather less than <sup>5</sup>/<sub>8</sub>ths of an -inch from front to back. The interspace between the first and second <i>sockets</i>, -which the teeth do not entirely fill, is more than <sup>1</sup>/<sub>4</sub> of an inch. The posterior -margin of each socket is elevated into a sort of collar.</p></div> - -<hr class="chap" /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_129" id="Page_129">« 129 »</a></span></p> - - - - -<h2><a name="APPENDIX" id="APPENDIX">APPENDIX.</a></h2> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p><i>Enumeration of some of the principal writings on the Ornithosauria -(selected chiefly from Von Meyer's Reptilien aus dem -Lithographischen Schiefer), with references to the shelves in -the Cambridge University Library, where the books may be -consulted.</i></p></div> - -<table summary="appendix"> -<tr> - <td class="hanging"><span class="smcap">Agassiz</span> (<span class="smcap">Louis</span>).—Memoires Soc. Nat. Neuchâtel, Vol. 1, p. 19, - <i>paragraph notice in a memoir</i>, "Résumé des travaux de la section - d'histoire naturelle, et de celle des sciences medicales - pendant l'année, 1833"</td> - <td class="vbot tdr"><span class="smcap">B.</span> 3. 66.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdl4 hanging">A briefer notice in a paper, "A Period in the History of our - Planet," in Edinburgh New Phil. Journal, 1843, Vol. 35, - p. 9, quoted by Von Meyer</td> - <td class="vbot tdr"><span class="smcap">XXVIII.</span> 36. 65.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="hanging"><span class="smcap">de Blainville</span> (D.).—Osteographie; Palæotherium, p. 9 (Vol. 2), - quoted by v. Meyer</td> - <td class="vbot tdr"><span class="smcap">AF.</span> 5. 9.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td colspan="2" class="hanging"><span class="smcap">Bonaparte</span> (C. L.).—Nuovi Annali delle Scienze Naturali Bologna[1], - Vol. 1, 1838, p. 391; Vol. 4, 1840, 24 Sept. p. 91.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="hanging"><span class="smcap">Blumenbach.</span>—Manuel d'Histoire naturelle, éd. 1803, Vol. 2, - p. 408</td> - <td class="vbot tdr"><span class="smcap">B.</span> 12. 20.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdl4 hanging">(Vergleichende Anatomie, 1805, p. 75), § 44, Translation, - 1807</td> - <td class="vbot tdr">Tt. 18. 51.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdl4 hanging">Handbuch der Naturgeschichte, 1825, p. 620</td> - <td class="vbot tdr">Yy. 39. 6.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="hanging"><span class="smcap">Burmeister.</span>—Gesellsch. zu Halle, Vol. 3, Part 2, 1855; - Viertel-jahrsbericht, 28 April, p. 11</td> - <td class="vbot tdr"><span class="smcap">XXVI.</span> 50. 2.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="hanging"><span class="smcap">Collini.</span>—Acta Acad. Theod. Palat. 1784, Vol. 5, - p. 58, pl. 1.</td> - <td class="vbot tdr">17. 5. 34.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="hanging"><span class="smcap">Cuvier.</span>—Ossemens fossiles, Vol. 5, Pt. 2, p. 359, ed. 1824, pl. 23.</td> - <td class="vbot tdr"><span class="smcap">VII.</span> 1. 36.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdl4 hanging">Annales du Museum, 1809, Vol. 13, p. 424 - <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_130" id="Page_130">« 130 »</a></span></td> - <td class="vbot tdr"><span class="smcap">B.</span> 42. 13.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdl4 hanging">Règne Animal, ed. 1850, Vol. Rept. p. 62.</td> - <td class="vbot tdr"><span class="smcap">XVIII.</span> 15. 15.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="hanging"><span class="smcap">Dumeril et Bibron.</span>—Erpétologie générale, Vol. 4, p. 549.</td> - <td class="vbot tdr"><span class="smcap">B.</span> 37. 33.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="hanging"><span class="smcap">Fischer.</span>—Bibliotheca Palæontologica, Moscow, 1834, p. 163.</td> - <td class="vbot tdr"><span class="smcap">LR.</span> 15. 58.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td colspan="2" class="hanging"><span class="smcap">Fitzinger.</span>—Systema Reptilium[1], 1843, p. 35.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="hanging"><span class="smcap">Fraas.</span>—Württemb. naturw. Jahreshefte, <span class="smcap">XI.</span> 1855, p. 102.</td> - <td class="vbot tdr"><span class="smcap">XIII.</span> 24. 25.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="hanging"><span class="smcap">Giebel.</span>—Jahresbericht des naturwiss. Vereins zu Halle[1], 1849-50. - Fauna der Vorwelt, 1847 (Vögel und Amphib. p. 89).</td> - <td class="vbot tdr"><span class="smcap">B.</span> 46. 17.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdl2">Allgemeine Palæontologie[1], 1852, p. 231.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="hanging"><span class="smcap">Goldfuss.</span>—Nova Acta Leopold., <span class="smcap">XV.</span> Part 1, p. 63, pl. 7-10.</td> - <td class="vbot tdr">23. 4. 63.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="hanging"><span class="smcap">Van der Hoeven.</span>—Verslagen en Mededeelingen van het K, - Nederl. Institut over den Jare, 1846, p. 430.</td> - <td class="vbot tdr">23. 6. 136.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="hanging"><span class="smcap">Merk.</span>—Bald. Medic. Journ. Stück. 1787, Vol. 4, p. 74.</td> - <td class="vbot tdr"><span class="smcap">XVIII.</span> 23. 10.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="hanging"><span class="smcap">H. von Meyer.</span>—Reptilien aus dem Lithograph. Schiefer, 1859 - (Fauna der Vorwelt)</td> - <td class="vbot tdr"><span class="smcap">KK.</span> 1. 55.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdl4 hanging">Nova Acta Leopold., <span class="smcap">XV.</span> Part 2, 1831, p. 198, pl. 60</td> - <td class="vbot tdr">23. 4. 64.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdl4 hanging">Palæologica, 1832, pp. 115, 228</td> - <td class="vbot tdr"><span class="smcap">X.</span> 20. 39.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdl4 hanging">Jahrb. für Mineral. 1837, p. 316</td> - <td class="vbot tdr"><span class="smcap">XIII.</span> 14. 32.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdl4 hanging"><span class="padlf8">1838, pp. 415, 667</span></td> - <td class="vbot tdr"><span class="smcap">XIII.</span> 14. 33.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdl4 hanging"><span class="padlf8">1843, p. 583</span></td> - <td class="vbot tdr"><span class="smcap">XIII.</span> 14. 38.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdl4 hanging">Palæontographica, Vol. 1, p. 1846</td> - <td class="vbot tdr">B. 40. 53.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdl4 hanging">Jahrb. für Mineral. 1854, p. 51</td> - <td class="vbot tdr"><span class="smcap">XIII.</span> 14. 50.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdl4 hanging"><span class="padlf8">1855, p. 328</span></td> - <td class="vbot tdr"><span class="smcap">XIII.</span> 14. 61.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdl4 hanging"><span class="padlf8">1856, p. 826</span></td> - <td class="vbot tdr"><span class="smcap">XIII.</span> 14. 52.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdl4 hanging"><span class="padlf8">1857, p. 535</span></td> - <td class="vbot tdr"><span class="smcap">XIII.</span> 14. 53.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdl4 hanging"><span class="padlf8">1858, p. 62</span></td> - <td class="vbot tdr"><span class="smcap">XIII.</span> 14. 62.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="hanging"><span class="smcap">Von Munster.</span>—Jahrb. für Mineral. 1832, p. 412</td> - <td class="vbot tdr"><span class="smcap">XIII.</span> 14. 27.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdl4 hanging">Nova Acad. Leopold., <span class="smcap">XV.</span> Part 1, p. 49, pl. 6</td> - <td class="vbot tdr">23. 4. 63.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdl4 hanging">Jahrb. für Mineral. 1836, p. 580</td> - <td class="vbot tdr"><span class="smcap">XIII.</span> 14. 31.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdl4 hanging">Beiträge zur Petrefaktenkunde, i.; p. 83, 1839</td> - <td class="vbot tdr"><span class="smcap">XIII.</span> 11. 49.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdl4 hanging">Jahrb. für Mineral. 1839, p. 677</td> - <td class="vbot tdr"><span class="smcap">XIII.</span> 14. 34.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdl4 hanging"><span class="padlf8">1842, p. 35</span></td> - <td class="vbot tdr"><span class="smcap">XIII.</span> 14. 37.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="hanging"><span class="smcap">Oken.</span>—Isis, 1818, p. 246, pl. 4 - <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_131" id="Page_131">« 131 »</a></span></td> - <td class="vbot tdr"><span class="smcap">XXII.</span> 5. 2.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdl4 hanging"> 1819, p. 1788</td> - <td class="vbot tdr"><span class="smcap">XXII.</span> 5. 3.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="hanging"><span class="smcap">A. Oppel.</span>—Württemb. naturw. Jahreshefte, <span class="smcap">XII.</span> 1856, p. 326.</td> - <td class="vbot tdr"><span class="smcap">XIII.</span> 24. 25.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdl4 hanging">Württemb. naturw. Jahreshefte, <span class="smcap">XIV.</span> 1858, p. 55</td> - <td class="vbot tdr"><span class="smcap">XIII.</span> 24. 26.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="hanging"><span class="smcap">Quenstedt.</span>—Jahrb. für Mineral. 1854, p. 570</td> - <td class="vbot tdr"><span class="smcap">XIII.</span> 14. 50.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdl4 hanging">Ueber Pterodactylus Suevicus[1], 4to. 1855.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdl4 hanging">Sonst und Jetzt<a name="FNanchor_28" id="FNanchor_28"></a><a href="#Footnote_28" class="fnanchor">[1]</a>, 1856, p. 130.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdl4 hanging">Württemb. naturw. Jahreshefte, <span class="smcap">XIII.</span> 1857, p. 41; <span class="smcap">XIV.</span> 1858, - p. 299</td> - <td class="vbot tdr"><span class="smcap">XIII.</span> 24. 26.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdl4 hanging">Der Jura, 1858, p. 812</td> - <td class="vbot tdr"><span class="smcap">B.</span> 44. 48.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="hanging"><span class="smcap">Ritgen.</span>—Nova Acta Leopold., <span class="smcap">XIII.</span> Part 1, 1826, p. 329, pl. 16.</td> - <td class="vbot tdr">23. 4. 68.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td colspan="2" class="hanging"><span class="smcap">Th. von Sömmerring.</span>—Denkschriften Akad. München,</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdl4 hanging"><span class="padlf4">1812,</span> Vol. <span class="smcap">IV.</span> p. 89, pl. 5-7<a name="FNanchor_29" id="FNanchor_29"></a><a href="#Footnote_29" class="fnanchor">[2]</a></td> - <td class="vbot tdr">23. 3. 28.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdl4 hanging"><span class="padlf4">1820,</span> Vol. <span class="smcap">VI.</span> pp. 89, 102, pl.</td> - <td class="vbot tdr">23. 3. 31.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="hanging"><span class="smcap">Spix.</span>—Denkschriften Akad. München, <span class="smcap">VI.</span> 1820, p. 59</td> - <td class="vbot tdr">23. 3. 31.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="hanging"><span class="smcap">Theodori.</span>—Notiz für Nat. u. Heilk. 1830, No. 623, p. 101.</td> - <td class="vbot tdr">24. 2. 28.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td colspan="2" class="tdl2">Bericht des naturforschenden Vereins in Bamberg, 1852, p. 17.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td colspan="2" class="hanging"><span class="smcap">Wagler.</span>—System der Amphibien, 1830, p. 61, figs. 1, 2.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td colspan="2" class="hanging"><span class="smcap">Wagner</span> (A.).—Abhandl. Bayerischen Akad.,</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdl2"> <span class="smcap">II.</span> 1837, p. 163, pl.</td> - <td class="vbot tdr">23. 3. 41.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdl2"> <span class="smcap">VI.</span> Part 1, 1851, p. 129, pl. 5, 6; - Part 3, 1852, p. 690, pl. 19</td> - <td class="vbot tdr">23. 3. 45.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdl2"> <span class="smcap">VIII.</span> Part 2, 1858, p. 439, pl. 15-17</td> - <td class="vbot tdr">23. 3. 61.</td> -</tr> -</table> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_28" id="Footnote_28"></a><a href="#FNanchor_28"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> May be consulted on application to the Librarian.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_29" id="Footnote_29"></a><a href="#FNanchor_29"><span class="label">[2]</span></a> Good figure.</p></div> -<hr class="chap" /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_132" id="Page_132">« 132 »</a></span></p> - - -<p class="center"><i>Chief English Writings on Ornithosaurians.</i></p> - - - -<table summary="appendix"> -<tr> - <td class="hanging"><span class="smcap">J. S. Bowekbank.</span>—Quart. Jour. Geol. Soc. 1846, p. 7.</td> - <td class="vbot tdr"><span class="smcap">VII.</span> 3. 42.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdl2">Quart Jour. Geol. Soc. 1848, p. 2.</td> - <td class="vbot tdr"><span class="smcap">VII.</span> 3. 44.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdl2">Proc. Zool. Soc. 1851, p. 14.</td> - <td class="vbot tdr"><span class="smcap">XVIII.</span> 18. 3.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="hanging"><span class="smcap">W. Buckland.</span>—Geol. Trans. Ser. 2, Vol. <span class="smcap">III.</span> p. 217.</td> - <td class="vbot tdr"><span class="smcap">XIII.</span> 2. 8.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdl2">Geology and Mineralogy, Vol. <span class="smcap">I.</span> p. 221, Vol. <span class="smcap">II.</span> p. 31, pl. 21, 22.</td> - <td class="vbot tdr"><i>Zz</i>. 34. 10.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="hanging"><span class="smcap">T. H. Huxley.</span>—Quart. Jour. Geol. Soc. 1859, p. 658.</td> - <td class="vbot tdr"><span class="smcap">VII.</span> 3. 35.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdl2">Introduction to Classification of Animals, 1869, p. 110.</td> - <td class="vbot tdr"><span class="smcap">B.</span> 41. 70.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdl2">Proc. Zool. Soc. 1867, p. 417</td> - <td class="vbot tdr"><span class="smcap">XVIII.</span> 18. 19.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="hanging"><span class="smcap">G. A. Mantell.</span>—Geol. Trans. Ser. 2, Vol. <span class="smcap">V.</span> p. 170.</td> - <td class="vbot tdr"><span class="smcap">XIII.</span> 2. 10.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdl2">Quart. Jour. Geol. Soc. Vol. <span class="smcap">II.</span> p. 104.</td> - <td class="vbot tdr"><span class="smcap">VII.</span> 3. 42.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="hanging"><span class="smcap">R. Owen.</span>- Geol. Trans. Ser. 2, Vol. <span class="smcap">VI.</span> 1840, p. 411.</td> - <td class="vbot tdr"><span class="smcap">XIII.</span> 2. 12.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdl2">Brit. Assoc. Reports, 1841, p. 156.</td> - <td class="vbot tdr"><span class="smcap">II.</span> 6. 10.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdl2">Quart. Jour. Geol. Soc. Vol. <span class="smcap">II.</span> p. 96.</td> - <td class="vbot tdr"><span class="smcap">VII.</span> 3. 42.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdl2">British Fossil Mammals and Birds, 1846, p. 545.</td> - <td class="vbot tdr"><span class="smcap">IX.</span> 5. 15.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdl2">Odontography, Vol. <span class="smcap">I.</span> p. 273.</td> - <td class="vbot tdr"><span class="smcap">IX.</span> 10. 23.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdl2">Dixon's Geology of Sussex, 1850, p. 401.</td> - <td class="vbot tdr"><span class="smcap">VII.</span> 1. 5.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdl2">Palæont. Soc. Monograph, Owen, 1851, p. 80.</td> - <td class="vbot tdr"><span class="smcap">XVIII.</span> 14. 17.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdl2">Proc. Zool. Soc. 1851, p. 21.</td> - <td class="vbot tdr"><span class="smcap">XVIII.</span> 18. 3.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdl2">British Assoc. Reports, 1858, p. 97, sec.</td> - <td class="vbot tdr"><span class="smcap">II.</span> 6. 27.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdl2">Philosophical Trans. Royal Soc, 1859, Vol. 149, p. 161.</td> - <td class="vbot tdr">15. 3. 61.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdl2">Palæontographical Soc. Monograph, 1859.</td> - <td class="vbot tdr"><span class="smcap">XVIII.</span> 14.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdl2"><span class="padlf4">1860</span></td> - <td class="vbot tdr"><span class="smcap">XVIII.</span> 14. 9.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdl2">Palæontology, p. 244.</td> - <td class="vbot tdr"><span class="smcap">B.</span> 46. 29.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdl2">Anat. Vertebrates, Vol. <span class="smcap">I.</span> pp. 6, 18, 161, 175, 192, Vol. <span class="smcap">II.</span> - p. 13.</td> - <td class="vbot tdr"><span class="smcap">IX.</span> 11. 22.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="hanging"><span class="smcap">H. G. Seeley.</span>—British Assoc. Reports, 1864, p. 69, sec.</td> - <td class="vbot tdr"><span class="smcap">II.</span> 6. 33.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdl2">Annals of Natural History, 1865, Vol. <span class="smcap">XV.</span> p. 148.</td> - <td class="vbot tdr"><span class="smcap">XIII.</span> 30. 29.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdl2"><span class="padlf4">1866,</span> Vol. <span class="smcap">XVII.</span> p. 321.</td> - <td class="vbot tdr"><span class="smcap">XIII.</span> 30. 31.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdl2"><span class="padlf4">1869,</span> Vol. <span class="smcap">III.</span> p. 465.</td> - <td class="vbot tdr"><span class="smcap">XIII.</span> 30. 37.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdl2">Index to Aves Ornithosauria and Reptilia, p. 4, p. 89.</td> - <td class="vbot tdr"><span class="smcap">VII.</span> 6. 71.</td> -</tr> -</table> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_133" id="Page_133">« 133 »</a></span></p> - - - - -<h2><a name="INDEX" id="INDEX">INDEX.</a></h2> - - -<p class="p0"> - Affinities, <a href="#Page_24">24</a>, <a href="#Page_94">94</a><br /> - Albatross, <a href="#Page_31">31</a><br /> - Alisphenoid, <a href="#Page_81">81</a><br /> - Appendix, <a href="#Page_129">129</a><br /> - Archæopteryx, <a href="#Page_8">8</a><br /> - Aspect, <a href="#Page_105">105</a><br /> - Astylica, <a href="#Page_97">97</a><br /> - Atlas and axis, <a href="#Page_64">64</a><br /> - Avian carpus, <a href="#Page_52">52</a><br /> -<br /> - - Basi-occipital bone, <a href="#Page_78">78</a><br /> - Basi-sphenoid, <a href="#Page_80">80</a><br /> - Bat, <a href="#Page_31">31</a>, <a href="#Page_105">105</a><br /> - Birds, <a href="#Page_52">52</a><br /> - Blainville, <a href="#Page_97">97</a><br /> - Body, <a href="#Page_108">108</a><br /> - Bonaparte, <a href="#Page_109">109</a><br /> - Brain, <a href="#Page_25">25</a><br /> - Brain-cavity, <a href="#Page_87">87</a><br /> - Buckland, <a href="#Page_60">60</a><br /> - Burmeister, <a href="#Page_17">17</a><br /> -<br /> - - Cambridge upper Greensand, <a href="#Page_2">2</a><br /> - Camel, <a href="#Page_47">47</a><br /> - Carp, <a href="#Page_79">79</a><br /> - Carpus, <a href="#Page_48">48</a><br /> - Carruthers (Mr), <a href="#Page_106">106</a><br /> - Caudal vertebræ, <a href="#Page_75">75</a><br /> - Cerebral lobes, <a href="#Page_87">87</a><br /> - Cervical vertebræ, <a href="#Page_65">65</a><br /> - Cetaceans, <a href="#Page_30">30</a><br /> - Chameleon, <a href="#Page_31">31</a>, <a href="#Page_34">34</a>, <a href="#Page_37">37</a>, <a href="#Page_41">41</a>, <a href="#Page_47">47</a>, <a href="#Page_72">72</a><br /> - Chelydra, <a href="#Page_61">61</a><br /> - Chrysochloris, <a href="#Page_42">42</a>, <a href="#Page_47">47</a><br /> - Ciconia marabou, <a href="#Page_86">86</a><br /> - Circulation, <a href="#Page_100">100</a><br /> - Classification, <a href="#Page_108">108</a><br /> - Claw phalange, <a href="#Page_59">59</a><br /> - Cod, <a href="#Page_79">79</a><br /> - Coracoid, <a href="#Page_32">32</a><br /> - Cranium, <a href="#Page_80">80</a><br /> - Crocodile, <a href="#Page_31">31</a>, <a href="#Page_35">35</a>, <a href="#Page_37">37</a>, <a href="#Page_41">41</a>, <a href="#Page_47">47</a>, <a href="#Page_63">63</a>, <a href="#Page_69">69</a>, <a href="#Page_83">83</a>, <a href="#Page_93">93</a>, <a href="#Page_95">95</a>, <a href="#Page_97">97</a><br /> - Cuvier, <a href="#Page_7">7</a>, <a href="#Page_92">92</a><br /> - Cycnorhamphus, <a href="#Page_111">111</a><br /> -<br /> - - Delphinidæ, <a href="#Page_83">83</a><br /> - Dentary bone, <a href="#Page_92">92</a><br /> - Dicynodonts, <a href="#Page_61">61</a><br /> - Dimensions, <a href="#Page_103">103</a><br /> - Dimorphodon, <a href="#Page_112">112</a>, <a href="#Page_60">60</a><br /> - Dinornis, <a href="#Page_67">67</a><br /> - Dinosaurs, <a href="#Page_99">99</a>, <a href="#Page_61">61</a><br /> - Dipnoal reptiles, <a href="#Page_99">99</a><br /> - Dorsal vertebræ, <a href="#Page_69">69</a><br /> -<br /> - - Echidna, <a href="#Page_61">61</a><br /> - ?Eggs, <a href="#Page_106">106</a><br /> - Epipubic bones (see prepubic bones)<br /> - Evidence that Pterodactyles were Reptiles, <a href="#Page_5">5</a><br /> -<br /> - - Facial bones, <a href="#Page_91">91</a><br /> - Families, <a href="#Page_110">110</a><br /> - Femur, <a href="#Page_62">62</a><br /> -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_134" id="Page_134">« 134 »</a></span> - Fibula, <a href="#Page_63">63</a>, <a href="#Page_22">22</a><br /> - Food, <a href="#Page_105">105</a><br /> - Fore-arm, <a href="#Page_48">48</a><br /> -<br /> - - Gallus domesticus, <a href="#Page_90">90</a>, <a href="#Page_82">82</a>, <a href="#Page_34">34</a><br /> - Genera, <a href="#Page_111">111</a><br /> - German Pterodactyles, <a href="#Page_106">106</a><br /> - Goldfuss, <a href="#Page_11">11</a>, <a href="#Page_63">63</a><br /> - Goose, <a href="#Page_92">92</a><br /> - Grouping of reptiles, <a href="#Page_97">97</a><br /> - Gypogeranus serpentarius, <a href="#Page_42">42</a><br /> -<br /> - - Habits, <a href="#Page_104">104</a><br /> - Hand, <a href="#Page_53">53</a><br /> - Hare, <a href="#Page_87">87</a><br /> - Head <a href="#Page_18">18</a>, <a href="#Page_77">77</a>, <a href="#Page_106">106</a><br /> - History, <a href="#Page_3">3</a><br /> - Horse, <a href="#Page_41">41</a><br /> - How the meaning of the word reptile is lost, <a href="#Page_98">98</a><br /> - Humerus, <a href="#Page_38">38</a><br /> - Huxley (Prof), <a href="#Page_86">86</a>, <a href="#Page_116">116</a><br /> -<br /> - - Ichthyosaurus, <a href="#Page_34">34</a>, <a href="#Page_37">37</a><br /> - Iguana, <a href="#Page_41">41</a>, <a href="#Page_47">47</a>, <a href="#Page_69">69</a>, <a href="#Page_82">82</a><br /> - Ilium, <a href="#Page_60">60</a><br /> - Ischium, <a href="#Page_60">60</a><br /> -<br /> - - Jerboa, <a href="#Page_64">64</a><br /> -<br /> - - Kangaroo, <a href="#Page_55">55</a>, <a href="#Page_69">69</a><br /> -<br /> - - Ligamentum teres, <a href="#Page_62">62</a><br /> - Lower jaw, <a href="#Page_91">91</a><br /> - Llama, <a href="#Page_77">77</a>, <a href="#Page_69">69</a><br /> -<br /> - - Malar bone, <a href="#Page_107">107</a><br /> - Mammalian Affinities, <a href="#Page_31">31</a>, <a href="#Page_34">34</a>, <a href="#Page_87">87</a>, <a href="#Page_41">41</a>, <a href="#Page_42">42</a>, <a href="#Page_61">61</a>, <a href="#Page_62">62</a>, <a href="#Page_69">69</a>, <a href="#Page_75">75</a>, <a href="#Page_79">79</a>, <a href="#Page_83">83</a>, <a href="#Page_86">86</a>, <a href="#Page_94">94</a>, <a href="#Page_105">105</a><br /> - Manubrium, <a href="#Page_29">29</a><br /> - Marsupial bones, <a href="#Page_61">61</a>, <a href="#Page_110">110</a><br /> - Materials, <a href="#Page_1">1</a><br /> - Mergus merganser, <a href="#Page_31">31</a><br /> - Metacarpus, <a href="#Page_53">53</a><br /> - Metatarsus, <a href="#Page_63">63</a><br /> - Meyer (H. von), <a href="#Page_17">17</a>, <a href="#Page_109">109</a><br /> - Mole, <a href="#Page_30">30</a>, <a href="#Page_37">37</a><br /> - Monimostylica, <a href="#Page_97">97</a><br /> - Monitor, <a href="#Page_41">41</a>, <a href="#Page_47">47</a>, <a href="#Page_69">69</a>, <a href="#Page_72">72</a>, <a href="#Page_86">86</a><br /> - Monotremata, <a href="#Page_34">34</a><br /> - Mould of Brain-cavity, <a href="#Page_87">87</a><br /> -<br /> - - Objections to Prof. Owen's grouping, <a href="#Page_99">99</a><br /> - Occipital bones, <a href="#Page_81">81</a><br /> - Oken, <a href="#Page_10">10</a><br /> - Optic lobes, <a href="#Page_84">84</a><br /> - Orbito-ethmo-sphenoid bone, <a href="#Page_85">85</a><br /> - Orbits, <a href="#Page_107">107</a><br /> - Organization, <a href="#Page_7">7</a><br /> - Ornithocephalus, <a href="#Page_111">111</a><br /> - Ornithocheirus, <a href="#Page_112">112</a><br /> - Ornithorhynchus, <a href="#Page_88">88</a><br /> - Ornithosauria, <a href="#Page_27">27</a><br /> - Ossemens fossiles, <a href="#Page_7">7</a><br /> - Ostrich, <a href="#Page_52">52</a>, <a href="#Page_58">58</a>, <a href="#Page_86">86</a><br /> - Owen (Prof. R.), <a href="#Page_3">3</a>, <a href="#Page_29">29</a>, <a href="#Page_32">32</a>, <a href="#Page_36">36</a>, <a href="#Page_48">48</a>, <a href="#Page_54">54</a>, <a href="#Page_56">56</a>, <a href="#Page_64">64</a>, <a href="#Page_66">66</a>, <a href="#Page_69">69</a>, <a href="#Page_75">75</a>, <a href="#Page_78">78</a>, <a href="#Page_88">88</a>, <a href="#Page_91">91</a>, <a href="#Page_92">92</a>, <a href="#Page_98">98</a>, <a href="#Page_108">108</a>, <a href="#Page_115">115</a><br /> -<br /> - - Pachyrhamphus, <a href="#Page_111">111</a><br /> - Parrot, <a href="#Page_87">87</a><br /> - Palæontology, <a href="#Page_109">109</a><br /> - Parietal bones, <a href="#Page_81">81</a><br /> - Parker (Mr W. K.), <a href="#Page_79">79</a><br /> - Pectoral girdle, <a href="#Page_28">28</a><br /> - Pelvis, <a href="#Page_59">59</a><br /> - Penguin, <a href="#Page_8">8</a>, <a href="#Page_69">69</a><br /> - Petrosal, <a href="#Page_82">82</a><br /> - Phalange, <a href="#Page_56">56</a><br /> - Plan of organisation, <a href="#Page_25">25</a><br /> - Pneumatic cavities, <a href="#Page_23">23</a>, <a href="#Page_26">26</a>, <a href="#Page_100">100</a><br /> - Porpoise, <a href="#Page_86">86</a><br /> - Post frontal, <a href="#Page_107">107</a><br /> - Premaxillary bones, <a href="#Page_91">91</a>, <a href="#Page_107">107</a><br /> - Prepubic bones (prepubic), <a href="#Page_61">61</a>, <a href="#Page_110">110</a>, <a href="#Page_111">111</a><br /> -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_135" id="Page_135">« 135 »</a></span> - Pterodactyle's place in nature, <a href="#Page_102">102</a><br /> - Pterodactylus, <a href="#Page_111">111</a><br /> - Pteroid bone, <a href="#Page_48">48</a><br /> - Pterosauria, <a href="#Page_99">99</a>, <a href="#Page_108">108</a><br /> - ?Pterygoid end of palatine bone, <a href="#Page_91">91</a><br /> -<br /> - - Quadrate bone, <a href="#Page_89">89</a>, <a href="#Page_107">107</a><br /> - Quadrato-jugal, <a href="#Page_90">90</a><br /> - Quenstedt, <a href="#Page_17">17</a>, <a href="#Page_21">21</a><br /> -<br /> - - Radius, <a href="#Page_42">42</a><br /> - Reptilia, <a href="#Page_94">94</a><br /> - Respiration, <a href="#Page_26">26</a>, <a href="#Page_100">100</a><br /> - Restoration, <a href="#Page_103">103</a><br /> - Rhamphorhynchus, <a href="#Page_111">111</a><br /> - Ribs, <a href="#Page_108">108</a><br /> - Roc, <a href="#Page_5">5</a><br /> - - - Sacrum, <a href="#Page_73">73</a><br /> - Scapula, <a href="#Page_35">35</a><br /> - Scink, <a href="#Page_41">41</a>, <a href="#Page_72">72</a><br /> - Second phalange, <a href="#Page_57">57</a><br /> - Sömmerring, <a href="#Page_10">10</a><br /> - Species, <a href="#Page_112">112</a><br /> - Squamosal bone, <a href="#Page_81">81</a><br /> - Stannius, <a href="#Page_97">97</a><br /> - Sternum, <a href="#Page_28">28</a><br /> - Streptostylica, <a href="#Page_97">97</a><br /> - Struthious birds, <a href="#Page_31">31</a>, <a href="#Page_72">72</a><br /> -<br /> - - Tarso-metatarsus, <a href="#Page_63">63</a><br /> - Teeth, <a href="#Page_92">92</a><br /> - Tibia, <a href="#Page_62">62</a><br /> -<br /> - - Ulna, <a href="#Page_43">43</a><br /> -<br /> - - Vertebral column, <a href="#Page_64">64</a><br /> - ?Vomer, <a href="#Page_88">88</a><br /> -<br /> - - Wagler, <a href="#Page_11">11</a><br /> - Wagner, <a href="#Page_14">14</a><br /> - Walker (Mr J. F.), <a href="#Page_87">87</a><br /> - Walking, <a href="#Page_105">105</a><br /> - Walrus, <a href="#Page_79">79</a><br /> - Wing-finger, <a href="#Page_66">66</a><br /> -</p> - -<p class="pmt4 pmb4 caption3">THE END.</p> - - -<div class="fig_center" style="width: 79px;"> -<img src="images/text_cambridge_sm.png" width="79" height="18" alt="Cambridge:" /> -</div> - -<p class="pmb4 center">PRINTED BY C. J. CLAY, M.A.<br /> -AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="p_i" id="p_i">« p_i »</a></span></p> - - -<p class="center"><span class="caption2">PLATE I.</span><a name="FNanchor_30" id="FNanchor_30"></a><a href="#Footnote_30" class="fnanchor">[AB]</a></p> - -<p class="caption3">Sternum and Scapula.</p> - -<p class="hang1">Fig. 1. Fore-part of sternum showing the ovate synovial facet - for the coracoid. <b>J</b>.<i>a</i>.1, p. 28.</p> - -<hr class="r40" /> - - <p class="hang2"> 2. Outside of the proximal end of a right scapula. - Largest specimen. <b>J</b>.<i>a</i>.3, no. 2, p. 35.</p> - - <p class="hang2"> 3. Outside of greater portion of a left scapula. <b>J</b>.<i>a</i>.3, no. 13.</p> - - <p class="hang2"> 4. Inner side of a small right scapula. <b>J</b>.<i>a</i>.3, no. 12.</p> - - <p class="hang2"> 5. Outside of proximal end of a right scapula. <b>J</b>.<i>a</i>.3, no. 3.</p> - - <p class="hang2"> 6. Surface of <b>J</b>.<i>a</i>.3, no. 3. articulating with humerus.</p> - - <p class="hang2"> 7. Outside of distal end of a scapula. <b>J</b>.<i>a</i>.4, no. 1.</p> - - <p class="hang2"> 8. View of the distal termination of a scapula.</p> - - <p class="hang2"> 9. View of proximal end of left scapula looking from the distal - toward the articular end. <b>J</b>.<i>a</i>.3, no. 17.</p> - - <p class="hang2">10. Proximal end of right scapula where united with coracoid, - looking at the scapula from the articulation. - <b>J</b>.<i>c4</i>.18.6. Compare fig. 6.</p> - - <p class="hang2">11. Inner surface of same specimen showing the pneumatic - foramen at the union of scapula and coracoid.</p> - - <p class="hang2">12. Outer view of the same specimen.</p> - - - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_30" id="Footnote_30"></a><a href="#FNanchor_30"><span class="label">[AB]</span></a> For the Lithographic details of plates 1 to 3, the author is not answerable. -Accidents happened to these plates in the printing, and they were replaced -without his knowledge by good copies; which however have sometimes deprived -the bones of their characters.</p> - -</div> - - - -<div class="fig_center" style="width: 369px;"> -<a href="images/plate_01_lrg.png"><img src="images/plate_01_sm.png" width="369" height="597" alt="SCAPULA Pl. 1." /></a> -<span class="fig_caption">Click on image to view larger vesion</span> -</div> - -<hr class="full" /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="p_ii" id="p_ii">« p_ii »</a></span></p> - - -<p class="caption2">PLATE II.</p> - - -<p class="caption3">Coracoid and Radius.</p> - -<p class="hang1">Fig. 1. Outer side view of left coracoid. <b>J</b>.<i>c3</i>.16.5, p. 32.</p> - - <p class="hang2"> 2. Back view of the same specimen showing the surface - which unites with the scapula.</p> - - <p class="hang2"> 3. Outer side view of perfect right coracoid. <b>J</b>.<i>c4</i>.18. 5. - Near the figure 3 is the pneumatic notch.</p> - - <p class="hang2"> 4. View of the proximal articular surface of a right coracoid. - <b>J</b>.<i>a</i>.2, no. 23.</p> - - <p class="hang2"> 5. Inner view of distal end of left coracoid. <b>J</b>.<i>a</i>.2, no. 18.</p> - - <p class="hang2"> 6. The distal articulation of the same specimen.</p> - -<hr class="r40" /> - - <p class="hang2"> 7. Fragment of proximal end of radius <sup>4</sup>/<sub>5</sub> nat. size. <b>J</b>.<i>a</i>.11, - no. 7, p. 46.</p> - - <p class="hang2"> 8. Proximal end of radius. <b>J</b>.<i>a</i>.11, no. 1.</p> - - <p class="hang2"> 9. Proximal articular surface of radius from the same - specimen.</p> - -<div class="fig_center" style="width: 296px;"> -<a href="images/plate_02_lrg.png"><img src="images/plate_02_sm.png" width="296" height="557" alt="CORACOID AND RADIUS Pl. 2." /></a> -<span class="fig_caption">Click on image to view larger vesion</span> -</div> - -<hr class="full" /> - - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="p_iii" id="p_iii">« p_iii »</a></span></p> - - -<p class="caption2">PLATE III.</p> - - -<p class="caption3">Radius and Ulna.</p> - -<p class="hang1">Fig. 1. Inner view of distal end of right radius. <b>J</b>.<i>a</i>.10, no. 2, - p. 44.</p> - - <p class="hang2"> 2. Outer view of distal end of right radius. <b>J</b>.<i>a</i>.10, no. 3.</p> - - <p class="hang2"> 3. Distal articulation of right radius. <b>J</b>.<i>a</i>.10, no. 6.</p> - -<hr class="r40" /> - - <p class="hang2"> 4. Inner view of proximal end of ulna with olecranon - anchylosed, p. 45.</p> - - <p class="hang2"> 5. Side view of the same specimen. <b>J</b>.<i>a</i>.9, no. 1.</p> - - <p class="hang2"> 6. Proximal end of ulna from which the olecranon has come - away. <b>J</b>.<i>a</i>.9, no. 5.</p> - - <p class="hang2"> 7. Proximal articular surface of same specimen.</p> - - <p class="hang2"> 8. Proximal articular surface of ulna. <b>J</b>.<i>a</i>.9, no. 4.</p> - - <p class="hang2"> 9. Proximal articular end of ulna from which the olecranon - has come away.</p> - -<hr class="r40" /> - - <p class="hang2">10. Distal end of right ulna. <b>J</b>.<i>a</i>.13, no. 5, p. 43.</p> - - <p class="hang2">11. Distal articulation of the same specimen.</p> - - <p class="hang2">12. Distal end of left ulna. <b>J</b>.<i>a</i>.12, no. 3.</p> - - <p class="hang2">13. Distal articulation of the same specimen.</p> - - -<div class="fig_center" style="width: 326px;"> -<a href="images/plate_03_lrg.png"><img src="images/plate_03_sm.png" width="326" height="549" alt="RADIUS AND ULNA Pl. 3." /></a> -<span class="fig_caption">Click on image to view larger vesion</span> -</div> - -<hr class="full" /> - - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="p_iv" id="p_iv">« p_iv »</a></span></p> - - -<p class="caption2">PLATE IV.</p> - -<p class="caption3">Humerus.</p> - -<p class="hang1">Fig. 1. A nearly perfect right humerus, from Ashwell. <b>J</b>.<i>a</i>.6, - no. 30, p. 38.</p> - - <p class="hang2"> 2. Same specimen seen from the proximal end, so as to display - the distal end, twisted at right angles with the radial - crest. The pneumatic foramen is on the anterior and - radial side.</p> - - <p class="hang2"> 3. Proximal end of left humerus showing the radial crest - perfect. <b>J</b>.<i>a</i>.6. 25.</p> - - <p class="hang2"> 4. Articular surface of same specimen showing the termination - of the radial crest.</p> - - <p class="hang2"> 5. Posterior aspect of proximal end of right humerus. The - pneumatic foramen is on the posterior and ulnar side.</p> - - <p class="hang2"> 6. Proximal articular surface of left humerus. <b>J</b>.<i>a</i>.6, no. 2.</p> - - <p class="hang2"> 7. Distal end of right humerus. <b>J</b>.<i>a</i>.6, no. 29.</p> - - <p class="hang2"> 8. Distal articulation of left humerus. <b>J</b>.<i>a</i>.6, no. 45.</p> - - <p class="hang2"> 9. Distal end of same specimen.</p> - - <p class="hang2">10. Distal end of left humerus. <b>J</b>.<i>a</i>.6.20.</p> - - <p class="hang2">11. Distal end of right humerus. <b>J</b>.<i>a</i>.6.46.</p> - - <p class="hang2">12. Distal end of left humerus. <b>J</b>.<i>a</i>.6.34.</p> - - <p class="hang2">13. Distal end of left humerus from a specimen lent by - J. B. Lee, Esq.</p> - - <p class="hang2">14. Distal end of left humerus. <b>J</b>.<i>a</i>.6.35.</p> - - - -<div class="fig_center" style="width: 362px;"> -<a href="images/plate_04_lrg.png"><img src="images/plate_04_sm.png" width="362" height="582" alt="HUMERUS. Pl. 4." /></a> -<span class="fig_caption">Click on image to view larger vesion</span> -</div> - -<hr class="full" /> - - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="p_v" id="p_v">« p_v »</a></span></p> - - -<p class="caption2">PLATE V.</p> - -<p class="caption3">Carpal Bones.</p> - -<p class="hang1">Fig. 1. Distal surface of right proximal carpal bone, p. 48.</p> - - <p class="hang2"> 2. Same specimen seen from outer end, showing the large - unarticular surface, above is a part of the distal articulation. - <b>J</b>.<i>b</i>.1, no. 1. (figured upside down).</p> - - <p class="hang2"> 3. Proximal articular surface of right proximal carpal bone. - <b>J</b>.<i>b</i>.1, no. 7. The right upper part is for the radius, - the left lower part for the ulna.</p> - - <p class="hang2"> 4. View of same specimen (upside down) from the ulnar side.</p> - - <p class="hang2"> 5. View of same specimen from the radial side.</p> - -<hr class="r40" /> - - <p class="hang2"> 6. Portion of distal articular surface of a right distal carpal - bone. <b>J</b>.<i>b</i>.3, no. 23, <sup>4</sup>/<sub>5</sub> nat. size, p. 50.</p> - - <p class="hang2"> 7. Front radial side of right distal carpal. <b>J</b>.<i>b</i>.3.24.</p> - - <p class="hang2"> 8. Back ulnar side of the same specimen.</p> - - <p class="hang2"> 9. Proximal articular surface of the same distal carpal.</p> - - <p class="hang2">10. Distal articular surface of the same distal carpal.</p> - - <p class="hang2">11. View of the proximal articular surface of the same - distal carpal, seen from the inside.</p> - - <p class="hang2">12. Perfect element of left distal carpal bone showing the - distal carpal bone to be composite.</p> - - <p class="hang2">13. Distal surface of a right distal carpal of another genus. - <b>J</b>.<i>b</i>.3, no. 20.</p> - -<hr class="r40" /> - - <p class="hang2">14. Lateral carpal or pisiform bone, seen from the inside, the - distal articular talon partly broken. <b>J</b>.<i>b</i>.4, no. 2.</p> - - <p class="hang2">15. Lateral carpal seen from the outside. <b>J</b>.<i>b</i>.4.9.</p> - - <p class="hang2">16. Same bone showing the distal articulation, p. 51.</p> - - <p class="hang2">17. Lateral carpal bone of a different genus, seen from the - inside.</p> - - -<div class="fig_center" style="width: 361px;"> -<a href="images/plate_05_lrg.png"><img src="images/plate_05_sm.png" width="361" height="580" alt="CARPAL BONES Pl. 5." /></a> -<span class="fig_caption">Click on image to view larger vesion</span> -</div> - -<hr class="full" /> - - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="p_vi" id="p_vi">« p_vi »</a></span></p> - - -<p class="caption2">PLATE VI.</p> - -<p class="caption3">Wing Metacarpal Bone, &c.</p> - -<p class="hang1">Fig. 1. Fragment of the proximal end of a large wing-metacarpal - bone. <b>J</b>.<i>b</i>.5, no. 9. It is figured upside down, - a part of the surface articulating with the distal carpal - bone being over the fig. 1, p. 53.</p> - - <p class="hang2"> 2. Aspect of the proximal articular sur&.ce of the wing-metacarpal - bone. <b>J</b>.<i>b</i>.5, no. 3.</p> - - <p class="hang2"> 3. Exterior aspect of the same specimen.</p> - - <p class="hang2"> 4. Inner aspect of another proximal end. <b>J</b>.<i>b</i>.5, no. 4.</p> - - <p class="hang2"> 5. The greater part of a small wing-metacarpal bone. - <b>J</b>.<i>b</i>.5, no. 1. Imperfect at the distal end.</p> - - <p class="hang2"> 6. Distal end of a wing-metacarpal bone. <b>J</b>.<i>b</i>.5, no. 31.</p> - - <p class="hang2"> 7. Front aspect of the same specimen.</p> - -<hr class="r40" /> - - <p class="hang2"> 8. Distal end of metatarsal bone or of a metacarpal bone - of a small finger. <b>J</b>.<i>b</i>.8, no. 1.</p> - - <p class="hang2"> 9. Lateral aspect of a similar bone. <b>J</b>.<i>b</i>.8, no. 2.</p> - -<hr class="r40" /> - - <p class="hang2">10. Outline of the imperfect distal termination of a bone - regarded as left metatarsus of an Ornithosaurian. - <b>J</b>.<i>b</i>.13, p. 63.</p> - - <p class="hang2">11. Front aspect of the same specimen.</p> - -<hr class="r40" /> - - <p class="hang2">12. Articular aspect of proximal end of first phalange of the - wing-finger, from which the terminal epiphysis has - come away. <b>J</b>.<i>b</i>.6, no. 10.</p> - - <p class="hang2">13. Diagram outline of the same specimen, p. 56.</p> - - - -<div class="fig_center" style="width: 355px;"> -<a href="images/plate_06_lrg.png"><img src="images/plate_06_sm.png" width="355" height="596" alt="WING-METACARPAL BONE, &c. Pl. 6." /></a> -<span class="fig_caption">Click on image to view larger vesion</span> -</div> - -<hr class="full" /> - - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="p_vii" id="p_vii">« p_vii »</a></span></p> - - -<p class="caption2">PLATE VII.</p> - -<p class="caption3">Wing Finger.</p> - -<p class="hang1">Fig. 1. Exterior aspect of proximal end of first phalange of the - wing-finger. <b>J</b>.<i>c3</i>.16.12, p. 56.</p> - - <p class="hang2"> 2. Inner aspect of proximal end of a small wing-metacarpal - bone which has lost its proximal epiphysis; it shows - the notch for the pneumatic foramen. <b>J</b>.<i>c1</i>.8.8.</p> - - <p class="hang2"> 3. Fragment of the proximal end of a large wing-metacarpal - bone, showing near the fig. 3 part of the articular - surface. <b>J</b>.<i>c3</i>.15. 10.</p> - - <p class="hang2"> 4. Distal end of 1 first phalange of the wing-finger. - <b>J</b>.<i>c6</i>.31. 7, no. 1.</p> - - <p class="hang2"> 5. Distal articular surface of a first phalange.</p> - - <p class="hang2"> 6. Distal end of a first phalange. <b>J</b>.<i>b</i>.6, no. 4.</p> - -<hr class="r40" /> - - <p class="hang2"> 7. Proximal end of the second phalange of the wing-finger. - <b>J</b>.<i>c2</i>.12.12, p. 57.</p> - - <p class="hang2"> 8. Proximal end of a small second phalange. <b>J</b>.<i>b</i>.7, no. 7.</p> - - <p class="hang2"> 9. Proximal end of a large second phalange. <b>J</b>.<i>b</i>.7, no. 4.</p> - -<hr class="r40" /> - - <p class="hang2">10. Side view of distal end of right femur. <b>J</b>.<i>b</i>.11, no. 11, p. 62.</p> - - - -<div class="fig_center" style="width: 353px;"> -<a href="images/plate_07_lrg.png"><img src="images/plate_07_sm.png" width="353" height="597" alt="WING FINGER Pl. 7." /></a> -<span class="fig_caption">Click on image to view larger vesion</span> -</div> - -<hr class="full" /> - - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="p_viii" id="p_viii">« p_viii »</a></span></p> - - -<p class="caption2">PLATE VIII.</p> - -<p class="caption3">Pelvis, Femur, Tibia, &c.</p> - - -<p class="hang1">Fig. 1. Fragment of a large right os innominatum. The faint - T-shaped lines in the acetabulum indicate the limits - of the three component pelvic bones; fig. 1 is placed - at the posterior border of the ischium. <b>J</b>.<i>b</i>.10, no. 1.</p> - - <p class="hang2"> 2. Imperfect right os innominatum, with the anterior - and posterior wings of the ilium broken away. - <b>J</b>.<i>b</i>.10, no. 4, p. 69.</p> - - <p class="hang2"> 3. Imperfect left os innominatum showing the small obturator - foramen which divides the pubis from the - ischium. On the anterior border of the pubis is seen a - depression, which may have given attachment to the - prepubic bone. <b>J</b>.<i>b</i>.10, no. 3.</p> - - <p class="hang2"> 4. Visceral aspect of an imperfect right ischium. <b>J</b>.<i>c4</i>.20.2.</p> - -<hr class="r40" /> - - <p class="hang2"> 5. Exterior side aspect of a right femur. <b>J</b>.<i>c2</i>.11. 20.</p> - - <p class="hang2"> 6. Front aspect of the same specimen, p. 62.</p> - - <p class="hang2"> 7. Posterior aspect of proximal end of right femur of a - different genus, showing a pit for the obturator - muscle. <b>J</b>.<i>b</i>.11, no. 1.</p> - - <p class="hang2"> 8. Front aspect of the same specimen.</p> - - <p class="hang2"> 9. Outline of the proximal articular end; the obturator pit - is darkened.</p> - - <p class="hang2">10. Posterior aspect of distal end of right femur. <b>J</b>.<i>b</i>.11, - no. 20.</p> - - <p class="hang2">11. Outline of the distal articular end of the same specimen.</p> - - <p class="hang2">12. Distal end of a large right femur. <b>J</b>.<i>b</i>.11, no. 12.</p> - -<hr class="r40" /> - - <p class="hang2">13. Proximal end of tibia (? front aspect). <b>J</b>.<i>b</i>.12, no. 8.</p> - - <p class="hang2">14. Another view of the same specimen, p. 62.</p> - - <p class="hang2">15. Outline of the articular aspect of the same tibia. The - non-articular part is shaded.</p> - -<hr class="r40" /> - - <p class="hang2">16. Claw phalange. <b>J</b>.<i>c1</i>.2.5, p. 69.</p> - - <p class="hang2">17. Claw phalange. <b>J</b>.<i>c</i>.9, no. 4.</p> - - -<div class="fig_center" style="width: 361px;"> -<a href="images/plate_08_lrg.png"><img src="images/plate_08_sm.png" width="361" height="595" alt="PELVIS, FEMUR, TIBIA, &c. Pl. 8." /></a> -<span class="fig_caption">Click on image to view larger vesion</span> -</div> - -<hr class="full" /> - - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="p_ix" id="p_ix">« p_ix »</a></span></p> - - -<p class="caption2">PLATE IX.</p> - -<p class="caption3">Neck Vertebræ.</p> - -<p class="hang1">Fig. 1. Anterior aspect of an axis to which the atlas was not - anchylosed. <b>J</b>.<i>c3</i>.15. 2, p. 64.</p> - - <p class="hang2"> 2. Anchylosed atlas and axis seen from the base of the - vertebra. <b>J</b>.<i>c</i>.1, no. 8.</p> - - <p class="hang2"> 3. Anchylosed atlas and axis seen from above. <b>J</b>.<i>c</i>.1, - no. 14.</p> - - <p class="hang2"> 4. Atlas, neural arch imperfect. <b>J</b>.<i>c</i>.1, no. 10.</p> - - <p class="hang2"> 5. Anchylosed atlas and axis seen from the side, the neural - arch of the atlas is wanting. The light space in the - centrum of the axis is the pneumatic foramen. <b>J</b>.<i>c</i>.1, - no. 14.</p> - -<hr class="r40" /> - - <p class="hang2"> 6. Large cervical vertebra seen from below. <b>J</b>.<i>c</i>.2, no. 42, - p. 65.</p> - - <p class="hang2"> 7. Small cervical vertebra seen from below. <b>J</b>.<i>c</i>.2, no. 43.</p> - - <p class="hang2"> 8. Cervical vertebra seen from behind. <b>J</b>.<i>c</i>.2, no. 5.</p> - - <p class="hang2"> 9. Cervical vertebra seen from above. <b>J</b>.<i>c</i>.2, no. 23.</p> - - <p class="hang2">10. Cervical vertebra seen from the left side. <b>J</b>.<i>c6</i>.27.1, - no. 4.</p> - - <p class="hang2">11. Cervical vertebra of another genus seen from the left - side. <b>J</b>.<i>c</i>.2, no. 13.</p> - - <p class="hang2">12. Base of the centrum of the last true cervical vertebra. - <b>J</b>.<i>c</i>.2, no. 40.</p> - - <p class="hang2">13. Right side of cervical vertebra. <b>J</b>.<i>c</i>.2, no. 7.</p> - - -<div class="fig_center" style="width: 343px;"> -<a href="images/plate_09_lrg.png"><img src="images/plate_09_sm.png" width="343" height="581" alt="NECK VERTEBRÆ Pl. 9." /></a> -<span class="fig_caption">Click on image to view larger vesion</span> -</div> - -<hr class="full" /> - - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="p_x" id="p_x">« p_x »</a></span></p> - - -<p class="caption2">PLATE X.</p> - -<p class="caption3">Back and Tail Vertebræ.</p> - -<p class="hang1">Fig. 1. Centrum of a vertebra from the region between the neck - and the back, called pectoral. <b>J</b>.<i>c</i>.3, no. 19, p. 69.</p> - - <p class="hang2"> 2. Dorsal vertebra seen from below. <b>J</b>.<i>c2</i>.12.3, no. 2.</p> - - <p class="hang2"> 3. The same specimen seen from behind.</p> - - <p class="hang2"> 4. Right side view of a dorsal vertebra showing the neural - spine nearly perfect. <b>J</b>.<i>c</i>.3, no. 20.</p> - - <p class="hang2"> 5. The same specimen seen from behind.</p> - - <p class="hang2"> 6. Right side of dorsal vertebra showing anterior and posterior - zygapophyses. The neural spine broken.</p> - - <p class="hang2"> 7. Front view of the same specimen. The centrum is seen - to form but a small part of the anterior articular surface.</p> - -<hr class="r40" /> - - <p class="hang2"> 8. Bight side of a sacral vertebra <b>J</b>.<i>c</i>.4, no. 1, p. 73.</p> - - <p class="hang2"> 9. Front aspect of the same specimen. The neural arch - forms part of the intervertebral articulation with the centrum.</p> - - <p class="hang2">10. Side view of the anterior part of a sacrum, presented by - H. C. Raban Esq. <b>J</b>.<i>c</i>.4, no. 3.</p> - - <p class="hang2">11. The same specimen seen from below.</p> - - <p class="hang2">12. Inferior aspect of posterior part of sacrum of a different - genus. <b>J</b>.<i>c</i>.4, no. 2.</p> - -<hr class="r40" /> - - <p class="hang2">13. Large caudal vertebra seen from above. <b>J</b>.<i>c</i>.5, no. 9.</p> - - <p class="hang2">14. The same specimen seen from beneath, p. 75.</p> - - <p class="hang2">15. Left side of the same specimen.</p> - - <p class="hang2">16. Anterior articulation of the same specimen.</p> - - <p class="hang2">17. Posterior aspect of the same specimen.</p> - - - -<div class="fig_center" style="width: 336px;"> -<a href="images/plate_10_lrg.png"><img src="images/plate_10_sm.png" width="336" height="564" alt="BACK AND TAIL VERTEBRÆ Pl. 10." /></a> -<span class="fig_caption">Click on image to view larger vesion</span> -</div> - -<hr class="full" /> - - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="p_xi" id="p_xi">« p_xi »</a></span></p> - - -<p class="caption2">PLATE XI.</p> - -<p class="caption3">Cranium.</p> - -<p class="hang1">Fig. 1. Occipital aspect of the skull of a Pterosaurian. <b>J</b>.<i>c</i>.8, - no. 2, p. 84.</p> - - <p class="hang2"> 2. Anterior aspect of the same skull, showing a transverse - section of the brain cavity fractured through the - parietal bones. At its base on each side are seen the - optic lobes.</p> - - <p class="hang2"> 3. Anterior aspect of a Pterodactyle skull of a different - genus. <b>J</b>.<i>c</i>.8, no. 1. The frontal bones have come - away from the parietal at the suture, p. 80.</p> - - <p class="hang2"> 4. Superior aspect of the same specimen looking upon the - parietal, supra-occipital, and ex-occipital bones.</p> - - <p class="hang2"> 5. Occipital aspect of the same specimen, showing the - foramen magnum, the absence of the basi-occipital - bone, and the basi-sphenoid mass.</p> - - <p class="hang2"> 6. Side view of the same specimen, showing below the - girdling occipital crest the excavation for the quadrate - bone's articulation with the skull, and the forward - prolongation of the basi-sphenoid mass.</p> - - <p class="hang2"> 7. Palatal aspect of the basi-sphenoid bone. <b>J</b>.<i>c</i>.9. To be - compared with the small triangular mass in fig. 5, p. 85.</p> - - <p class="hang2"> 8. Side view of the ethmo-sphenoid mass, <b>J</b>.<i>c</i>.9, showing the - lateral boundary of the front of the cerebral hemispheres, p. 85.</p> - - <p class="hang2"> 9. Posterior aspect of the same specimen, showing parts of - the cups which covered the anterior termination of the cerebral lobes.</p> - - <p class="hang2">10. Anterior view of the cerebral lobes in a natural mould - of the brain, in the collection of J. F. Walker, Esq. - It may be compared with figs. 2. and 9, p. 87.</p> - - <p class="hang2">11. Superior aspect of a natural mould of the brain, showing - the outline of the cerebral lobes, and the cerebellum - between them behind. Portions of bone in the temporal - region are left attached, p. 87.</p> - - <p class="hang2">12. Side view of the same specimen; one cerebral lobe is - seen behind the other. The anterior termination of - this figure may be compared with the posterior outline of fig. 8.</p> - - <p class="hang2">13. Side view of basi-occipital bone, p. 78.</p> - - <p class="hang2">14. Palatal aspect of quadrate bone, showing the articulation - for the lower jaw, and the thin quadrato-jugal attached - to its outside, p. 89.</p> - - <p class="hang2">15. Exterior aspect of quadrato-jugal and quadrate bones. - Above the articulation in German specimens is the - outline of the orbit of the eye.</p> - - <p class="hang2">16. Anterior aspect of the distal end of a left quadrate bone.</p> - - <p class="hang2">17. Posterior aspect of the same specimen, showing the - wing for the pterygoid articulation.</p> - - -<div class="fig_center" style="width: 345px;"> -<a href="images/plate_11_lrg.png"><img src="images/plate_11_sm.png" width="345" height="574" alt="CRANIUM Pl. 11." /></a> -<span class="fig_caption">Click on image to view larger vesion</span> -</div> - -<hr class="full" /> - - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="p_xii" id="p_xii">« p_xii »</a></span></p> - - -<p class="caption2">PLATE XII.</p> - -<p class="caption3">Facial Bones and Lower Jaw.</p> - -<p class="hang1">Fig. 1. Side view of the dentary bone of Ornithocheirus - machærorhynchus, showing its posterior attenuation - towards the palate. <b>J</b>.<i>c6</i>.33.1, p. 113.</p> - - <p class="hang2"> 2. Superior aspect of the same specimen, showing the - palatal groove and tooth sockets.</p> - - <p class="hang2"> 3. Articular end of left ramus of mandible, <b>J</b>.<i>4</i>, showing - its posterior termination, p. 91.</p> - - <p class="hang2"> 4. Articular end of left ramus of mandible, <b>J</b>.<i>c6</i>.32. 2, - fractured through the articulation.</p> - - <p class="hang2"> 5. Side view of anterior part of dentary bone of Ornithocheirus - Cuvieri ? <b>J</b>.<i>c</i>.15, p. 113.</p> - - <p class="hang2"> 6. Side view of anterior part of premaxillary bone of - Ornithocheirus microdon, fractured at both ends. - <b>J</b>.<i>c</i>.29, p. 116.</p> - - <p class="hang2"> 7. Palatal aspect of the same specimen, showing the palatal - ridge and tooth sockets.</p> - - <p class="hang2"> 8. Palatal aspect of anterior part of premaxillary bone of - Ornithocheirus denticulatus. <b>J</b>.<i>c5</i>.28.1, p. 122.</p> - - <p class="hang2"> 9. Side view of the same specimen.</p> - - <p class="hang2">10. Tooth, showing absorption by the successional tooth, - on the inner side of the fang. <b>J</b>.<i>c</i>.27, no. 10, p. 92.</p> - - <p class="hang2">11. Tooth. <b>J</b>.<i>c1</i>.1.4.</p> - - <p class="hang2">12. Fang of a large tooth. <b>J</b>.<i>c</i>.27, no. 34.</p> - - <p class="hang2">13. Undetermined [? pterygoid end of palatine bone]. - <b>J</b>.<i>c1</i>.2.7, p. 91.</p> - - <p class="hang2">14. Other side of same specimen.</p> - - <p class="hang2">15. 1 Vomer, side view. <b>J</b>.<i>c</i>.10, no. 2, p. 88.</p> - - <p class="hang2">16. 1 Palatal view of the same specimen.</p> - - <p class="hang2">17. Pelvis with a bone attached like the middle part of - <b>J</b>.<i>c</i>.10, no. 2. ?Neural arch of sacral vertebra.</p> - - - -<div class="fig_center" style="width: 383px;"> -<a href="images/plate_12_lrg.png"><img src="images/plate_12_sm.png" width="383" height="594" alt="FACIAL BONES AND MANDIBLE Pl. 12." /></a> -<span class="fig_caption">Click on image to view larger vesion</span> -</div> - - - -<hr class="full" /> - -<div class="trans_notes"> -<h2><a name="Transcriber_Notes" id="Transcriber_Notes">Transcriber Notes</a></h2> - -<p>Minor typos were corrected and the Errata list changes were applied. -Standardization of hyphenation was standardized to the most common form -used. Headers for each genera's description was standardized to list -the specimen information first. Cover artwork and plate images derived -from materials made available on Google Books and The Internet Archive. -All are placed in the Public Domain.</p> - -</div> - - - - - - - - - - -<pre> - - - - - -End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of The Ornithosauria: an elementary study -of the bones of pterodactyles, by Harry Govier Seeley - -*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK ORNITHOSAURIA: AN ELEMENTARY STUDY *** - -***** This file should be named 52655-h.htm or 52655-h.zip ***** -This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: - http://www.gutenberg.org/5/2/6/5/52655/ - -Produced by Tom Cosmas from materials made available on -Google Books and The Internet Archive - -Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will -be renamed. - -Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright -law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, -so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United -States without permission and without paying copyright -royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part -of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm -concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, -and may not be used if you charge for the eBooks, unless you receive -specific permission. If you do not charge anything for copies of this -eBook, complying with the rules is very easy. You may use this eBook -for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, -performances and research. They may be modified and printed and given -away--you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks -not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the -trademark license, especially commercial redistribution. - -START: FULL LICENSE - -THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE -PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK - -To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full -Project Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at -www.gutenberg.org/license. - -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works - -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or -destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your -possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a -Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound -by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the -person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph -1.E.8. - -1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this -agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. - -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the -Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection -of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual -works in the collection are in the public domain in the United -States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the -United States and you are located in the United States, we do not -claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, -displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as -all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope -that you will support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting -free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm -works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the -Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work. You can easily -comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the -same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when -you share it without charge with others. - -1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are -in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, -check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this -agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, -distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any -other Project Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no -representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any -country outside the United States. - -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: - -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other -immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear -prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work -on which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the -phrase "Project Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, -performed, viewed, copied or distributed: - - This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and - most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no - restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it - under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this - eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the - United States, you'll have to check the laws of the country where you - are located before using this ebook. - -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is -derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not -contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the -copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in -the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are -redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply -either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or -obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any -additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms -will be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works -posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the -beginning of this work. - -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. - -1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg-tm License. - -1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including -any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access -to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format -other than "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official -version posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site -(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense -to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means -of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original "Plain -Vanilla ASCII" or other form. Any alternate format must include the -full Project Gutenberg-tm License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. - -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -provided that - -* You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed - to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has - agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid - within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are - legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty - payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in - Section 4, "Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg - Literary Archive Foundation." - -* You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm - License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all - copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue - all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm - works. - -* You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of - any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of - receipt of the work. - -* You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work or group of works on different terms than -are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing -from both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and The -Project Gutenberg Trademark LLC, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. - -1.F. - -1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project -Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may -contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate -or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other -intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or -other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or -cannot be read by your equipment. - -1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right -of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE. - -1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium -with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you -with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in -lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person -or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second -opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If -the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing -without further opportunities to fix the problem. - -1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO -OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT -LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. - -1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of -damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement -violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the -agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or -limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or -unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the -remaining provisions. - -1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in -accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the -production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, -including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of -the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this -or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or -additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any -Defect you cause. - -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm - -Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of -computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It -exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations -from people in all walks of life. - -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future -generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see -Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at -www.gutenberg.org - - - -Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation - -The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by -U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. - -The Foundation's principal office is in Fairbanks, Alaska, with the -mailing address: PO Box 750175, Fairbanks, AK 99775, but its -volunteers and employees are scattered throughout numerous -locations. Its business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt -Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to -date contact information can be found at the Foundation's web site and -official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact - -For additional contact information: - - Dr. Gregory B. Newby - Chief Executive and Director - gbnewby@pglaf.org - -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation - -Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide -spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS. - -The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND -DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular -state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate - -While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate. - -International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. - -Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To -donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate - -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. - -Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project -Gutenberg-tm concept of a library of electronic works that could be -freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and -distributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of -volunteer support. - -Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in -the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not -necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper -edition. - -Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search -facility: www.gutenberg.org - -This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. - - - -</pre> - -</body> -</html> diff --git a/old/52655-h/images/bracer_60.png b/old/52655-h/images/bracer_60.png Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index dc120d1..0000000 --- a/old/52655-h/images/bracer_60.png +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/52655-h/images/cover.jpg b/old/52655-h/images/cover.jpg Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index bdd779e..0000000 --- a/old/52655-h/images/cover.jpg +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/52655-h/images/m_rot.png b/old/52655-h/images/m_rot.png Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 0d2325c..0000000 --- a/old/52655-h/images/m_rot.png +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/52655-h/images/page_102.png b/old/52655-h/images/page_102.png Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index aa10df6..0000000 --- a/old/52655-h/images/page_102.png +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/52655-h/images/plate_01_lrg.png b/old/52655-h/images/plate_01_lrg.png Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 1ba85d6..0000000 --- a/old/52655-h/images/plate_01_lrg.png +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/52655-h/images/plate_01_sm.png b/old/52655-h/images/plate_01_sm.png Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 36f2c8c..0000000 --- a/old/52655-h/images/plate_01_sm.png +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/52655-h/images/plate_02_lrg.png b/old/52655-h/images/plate_02_lrg.png Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 288810b..0000000 --- a/old/52655-h/images/plate_02_lrg.png +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/52655-h/images/plate_02_sm.png b/old/52655-h/images/plate_02_sm.png Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index c6085b1..0000000 --- a/old/52655-h/images/plate_02_sm.png +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/52655-h/images/plate_03_lrg.png b/old/52655-h/images/plate_03_lrg.png Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 1c9c9e9..0000000 --- a/old/52655-h/images/plate_03_lrg.png +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/52655-h/images/plate_03_sm.png b/old/52655-h/images/plate_03_sm.png Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 354f13e..0000000 --- a/old/52655-h/images/plate_03_sm.png +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/52655-h/images/plate_04_lrg.png b/old/52655-h/images/plate_04_lrg.png Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 3a61fa8..0000000 --- a/old/52655-h/images/plate_04_lrg.png +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/52655-h/images/plate_04_sm.png b/old/52655-h/images/plate_04_sm.png Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 7bce23a..0000000 --- a/old/52655-h/images/plate_04_sm.png +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/52655-h/images/plate_05_lrg.png b/old/52655-h/images/plate_05_lrg.png Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index a2274c4..0000000 --- a/old/52655-h/images/plate_05_lrg.png +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/52655-h/images/plate_05_sm.png b/old/52655-h/images/plate_05_sm.png Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index ff2b34a..0000000 --- a/old/52655-h/images/plate_05_sm.png +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/52655-h/images/plate_06_lrg.png b/old/52655-h/images/plate_06_lrg.png Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 242e076..0000000 --- a/old/52655-h/images/plate_06_lrg.png +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/52655-h/images/plate_06_sm.png b/old/52655-h/images/plate_06_sm.png Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index f4a7c2c..0000000 --- a/old/52655-h/images/plate_06_sm.png +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/52655-h/images/plate_07_lrg.png b/old/52655-h/images/plate_07_lrg.png Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 1eb0484..0000000 --- a/old/52655-h/images/plate_07_lrg.png +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/52655-h/images/plate_07_sm.png b/old/52655-h/images/plate_07_sm.png Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 36bd99b..0000000 --- a/old/52655-h/images/plate_07_sm.png +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/52655-h/images/plate_08_lrg.png b/old/52655-h/images/plate_08_lrg.png Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index ca568e7..0000000 --- a/old/52655-h/images/plate_08_lrg.png +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/52655-h/images/plate_08_sm.png b/old/52655-h/images/plate_08_sm.png Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index a0dad90..0000000 --- a/old/52655-h/images/plate_08_sm.png +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/52655-h/images/plate_09_lrg.png b/old/52655-h/images/plate_09_lrg.png Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 968d15b..0000000 --- a/old/52655-h/images/plate_09_lrg.png +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/52655-h/images/plate_09_sm.png b/old/52655-h/images/plate_09_sm.png Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index bd926e2..0000000 --- a/old/52655-h/images/plate_09_sm.png +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/52655-h/images/plate_10_lrg.png b/old/52655-h/images/plate_10_lrg.png Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index e677594..0000000 --- a/old/52655-h/images/plate_10_lrg.png +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/52655-h/images/plate_10_sm.png b/old/52655-h/images/plate_10_sm.png Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index c297f9e..0000000 --- a/old/52655-h/images/plate_10_sm.png +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/52655-h/images/plate_11_lrg.png b/old/52655-h/images/plate_11_lrg.png Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index b7f6563..0000000 --- a/old/52655-h/images/plate_11_lrg.png +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/52655-h/images/plate_11_sm.png b/old/52655-h/images/plate_11_sm.png Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index d332739..0000000 --- a/old/52655-h/images/plate_11_sm.png +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/52655-h/images/plate_12_lrg.png b/old/52655-h/images/plate_12_lrg.png Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 4da91b9..0000000 --- a/old/52655-h/images/plate_12_lrg.png +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/52655-h/images/plate_12_sm.png b/old/52655-h/images/plate_12_sm.png Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index c3a0e27..0000000 --- a/old/52655-h/images/plate_12_sm.png +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/52655-h/images/text_cambridge.png b/old/52655-h/images/text_cambridge.png Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index d11f7b2..0000000 --- a/old/52655-h/images/text_cambridge.png +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/52655-h/images/text_cambridge_sm.png b/old/52655-h/images/text_cambridge_sm.png Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 5f04006..0000000 --- a/old/52655-h/images/text_cambridge_sm.png +++ /dev/null |
