sexes; but I know of no characters other than the presence or absence of tusks to distinguish Dicynodon and Oudenodon. The arrangement of bones and sutures, even to minute details, appears to be identical. Then the difficulty of determining the species is enhanced by the fact that many of Owen's types are indeterminable, since the points which appear to be most variable and on which species might be distinguished are often lost from the types.

The present specimen I have compared with all the known. determinable species of Dicynodon and Oudenodon, and conclude that it is distinct from all previously described species. It approaches a number in various ways, but only with three species might it be confused. Oudenodon baini, Owen, agrees with it fairly closely, but differs in having the tusk-like maxillary process passing more downwards, and in having the parietal region considerably wider than the frontal, besides in a number of minor characters. Oudenodon prognathus, Owen, differs in the peculiar manner in which the prominent ridge of the maxilla is directed forwards and in the smaller size of the nasal bosses. Oudenodon brevirostris, Owen, differs in the contour of the frontal and parietal regions.

As the species is evidently new, I should have been delighted to have named it after Prof. Seeley, who has done so much valuable work on the South African fossil reptiles, but unfortunately Broili has recently associated Seeley's name with Dicynodon, and a species which is certainly synonymous with one of Owen's types. Some years ago a number of fossil bones were got near Middelburg and sent to the South African Museum. Dr. Corstorphine, who, as director of the Geological Survey, had charge of the specimens, thought evidently there would be no harm in sending a few of the bones to Europe, but fortunately he kept the skull. The bones sent to Europe included a beautiful pelvis, but why any European palæontologist should think of making a pelvis of an Anomodont the type of a new species passes my comprehension. At the best. it could only cause confusion. In this case, fortunately, we know the skull, and it is identical with Owen's Ptychognathus boops. Whether Ptychognathus boops is itself a synonym of Dicynodon murrayi, Huxley, it is at present impossible to say, but quite certainly Dicynodon seeleyi, Broili, is not a new species. As the present skull cannot be called after Prof. Seeley, I propose to name it after Father F. C. Kolbe, D.D., who has taken such a prominent part in educational and scientific work at the Cape and to whom we owe the skull, and to call it Oudenodon kolbei.

The general shape of the skull is shown in the figures when

allowance is made for some degree of depression of the frontal and parietal regions. But though the outlines are moderately correct, the shading is very unsatisfactory. In Fig. 2 the deep vaulting of the front of the palate is not shown, nor is the deep depression between the anterior parts of the pterygoids brought out, nor the deep furrow between the basioccipital processes. In Fig. 1 there is very little attempt to indicate the heights and depths of the specimen. Figs. 3 and 4 are both fairly well drawn, but the shading bad in both, especially in Fig. 3.

The premaxillary (IM, intermaxillary in the figures) is a large powerful median bone. In all the Dicynodonts the bones of the two sides are anchylosed at a very early period. In front the bone forms a rounded sharp beak. Above a broad powerful internasal process passes up between the nasals and ends in a point as shown in Fig. 1. Underneath the premaxillary forms about two-thirds of the hard palate. Though the suture is not shown in the figures, it begins in the dark mark shown in Fig. 3 behind the letter "b" of "broken," and passes almost straight back along the outside of the irregularities believed by Seeley to be teeth. It then passes inwards in front of the irregularity marked "palatine tooth," and ends in the middle line in front of the irregularity marked "tooth," and behind the region marked "teeth lost." I have carefully examined the structures regarded by Seeley as teeth, and am quite satisfied they are merely bony irregularities with no tooth structure. The whole of the hard palate was probably covered by thick epithelium, which was horny in front, and probably most of the snout above was also covered with a horny beak and horny scales. Underneath the great epithelial development the bone in most places is irregular. The nasals, the premaxilla, and much of the external surface of the maxillæ have a very rough appearance. In the palate there are patches of what appear to me to be exactly the same style of roughened bone. This rough appearance is seen on the median ridge formed by the premaxilla and on the small part of the ridge formed by the vomer on the pair of ridges in the front part of the premaxillary, on the ridges formed by the lateral margins of the premaxillary, and on the anterior part of the palatines. Though it is customary to speak of the horny beak of the Anomodonts, it is probable that the beak was less horny than in the tortoise or bird, except perhaps just on the margins.

Both maxillæ are in almost perfect preservation; that of the left side being quite perfect except for the loss of a minute fragment from the caniniform process. The bone forms the greater part of

the side of the snout behind the large nostril. A stout suborbital process articulates with the jugal and meets the anterior end of the huge squamosal. On the palate the maxilla is overlapped by the premaxilla, and only forms a small part of the roof of the

mouth, though each maxilla forms about one-third of the margin of the palate. Posteriorly the maxilla meets the palatine, and much of it is covered by the jugal.

The nasal is comparatively short. It forms an overhanging roof to the nostril, and a considerable part of the posterior wall. It meets its neighbour only for a very short distance near the frontal bone, the two nasals being nearly completely separated by the internasal process of the premaxilla. Above and a little behind the nostril there is a well-marked bony thickening slightly exaggerated in Fig. 1.

On the posterior wall of the nostril there is a small bone which appears to be quite distinct from both the maxilla and the nasal, and which is evidently a small septomaxillary. Hitherto a septomaxillary has not been detected in any Anomo

dont, though it is known in all the other groups of mammal-like reptiles-Cynodontia, Therocephalia, Dinocephalia, Dromasauria, and Pelycosauria-as well as in the Cotylosaurian suborders Pareiasauria and Procolophonia and in the Monotremes.

The lachrymal has a comparatively small facial portion, though it forms a considerably larger part of the orbital wall. The foramen is rather large and lies inside the orbit.

The prefrontal is a little larger than the lachrymal, and forms the anterior part of the supraorbital ridge. It also forms a considerable portion of inner wall of the orbit.

The frontals are paired elongated bones which form most of the interorbital region, and pass back as far as the pineal foramen. Though the suture between the frontals and the nasals is not very clearly defined, owing to the thickening of the bones, it is probably very nearly as determined by Seeley. Posteriorly the frontals become very narrow as they pass back between the preparietal and the postfrontal and postorbital. The suture between the frontals and the parietals is on the plane of the front of the pineal foramen. The line indicating a supposed suture in front of this in Fig. 1 is an error. Where the frontals meet each other there is a slight median ridge, and the orbital margins are considerably elevated, leaving a pair of fairly deep furrows along the frontal bones. On the upper side of each bone opposite the middle of the orbit are a pair of short grooves which end in foramina, most probably for branches of the supraorbital branch of the Vth nerve.

The postfrontal bones can be very clearly defined for the first time in a Dicynodon or Oudenodon skull. They were known to occur in Lystrosaurus, in a number of Therocephalians and in Dinocephalians and Pelycosaurs, but they are lost in all Cynodonts, and were hitherto believed to have been also lost in Dicynodon and Oudenodon. The part that now proves to be a distinct postfrontal bone was hitherto regarded as a part of the frontal, the suture being usually indistinct or lost. In Fig. 1 the two postfrontals are well shown as small triangular bones situated at the posterior and upper corner of the orbit. On the posterior side of each is the postorbital and on the inner side the frontal. In my opinion the postfrontals extend further back than indicated in Fig. 1, as delicate processes by the side of the frontals.

The postorbitals are large bones which form almost the whole of the inner wall of the temporal fossa and the greater part of the postorbital arch. This large bone used to be regarded as the postfrontal (Seeley 1889, Broom 1901, 1903), but the discovery of a small but distinct bone in front of it in Scylacosaurus in 1903 showed that the large bone must be called the postorbital, the small more anterior one being manifestly the postfrontal. Exactly what Seeley's position in the matter was latterly I cannot say.

In