Page:Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London, vol. 27.djvu/130

32 manner of union of these with the nasal bones; but the teeth differ: those of Melitosaurus champsoides (making allowance for the much larger size of the individual) are stouter, much less sharply pointed, and less tapering; their enamel marking has also a different character, being much more finely wrinkled than in this Gozo crocodile.

In its elongated form and its regularly tapering outline (not suddenly contracted in front of the orbits as in the Indian gavial), in the commencement of the nasal bones opposite the front borders of the orbits, in the slenderness of these bones, and in their insensible junction with the ascending processes of the præmaxillæ the skull of the Gozo crocodile resembles that of the existing Rhynchosuchus Schlegelii; but it differs from it in several particulars, amongst which are the crenation of the alveolar border of the distal halves of the snout, the more oblong shape of the syncipital area, the larger size and different shape of the supratemporal fossæ, the raised margin of the orbit, and the more hollow interorbital space. I propose for this Gozo crocodile the specific name of gaudensis.

in.

Dr. suggested that the Ichthyosaurian fossil might be derivative from some secondary rock. He mentioned that Dr. Leith Adams had once sent him an Aspidiscus cristatus from the Hippurite Limestone, which was stated to have come from Malta. To account for this, he suggested that the Miocene of Malta might have been supported on beds of Cretaceous age, and fossils from that source might have become imbedded in the coral reefs of the later date.