^{page 307 note 4} Suprá, Vol. II. pp. 496–510 (1885).Google Scholar

^{page 307 note 5} Vol. ix. No. 5 (1886).

^{page 307 note 6} GEOL. MAG. op. cit. p. 509.Google Scholar

^{page 308 note 1} I follow the views of Dr. Günther in this respect.

^{page 308 note 2} Bull. Soc. Géol. France, ser. 2, vol. iv. p. 383 (1847).Google Scholar

^{page 308 note 3} Catalogue Méthodique, p. 124 (1853).

^{page 308 note 4} Neues Jahrbuch, 1857, p 538.

^{page 308 note 5} Ann Sci. Géol. vol. iii. art. 1 (1872).Google Scholar

^{page 308 note 6} Palæontographica, suppl. vol. iii. pt. 4.

^{page 309 note 1} See Lydekker, , “Palæontologia Indica” (Mem. Geol. Surr. Ind.), ser. 10, vol. iii. p. 216(1886).Google Scholar

^{page 310 note 1} Analogous modifications in a still more marked degree are exhibited in the three crania of the existing long-nosed C. intermedius figured by Lütken, in the “Vidensk. Meddell,” 1884, p. 61, pl. v.Google Scholar

^{page 310 note 2} Woodward, , GEOL. MAO op. cit. p. 508.Google Scholar

^{page 310 note 3} Mem. Ac. R. Lincei, ser. 3, vol. v. p. 67, pl. i. (1880).Google Scholar

^{page 310 note 4} The “échancrure orbito-latéro-temporale” of Dollo.

^{page 310 note 5} Bull. R. Hist. Nat. Belg. vol. ii. p. 334, pl. xii. (1883).Google Scholar

^{page 310 note 6} Ibid. p.222.

^{page 310 note 7} M. Dollo's statement was probably derived from Sir R. Owen's figures, but fig.24 shows most clearly the vertical bar occurring in the middle of this vacuity; the rims of the parieto-frontal and quadrato-jugal regions having been broken away.

^{page 310 note 8} The onus of proving any distinction between Hylæochampsa and Bernissartia now rests entirely with M. Dollo.

^{page 311 note 1} Zeitschr. deutsch Geol. Ger. vol. xxxv. p. 824, note (1883). The suggestion here made that the vertebræ are procœlous has proved unfounded.Google Scholar