. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College. Zoology. Figure 11. Right posterior half of pelobatid skulls, dorsal view, a, Scaphiopus h. holbrooki, MCZ 58003; b, Eope/obafes guthriei, MCZ 3493; c, Pelobates fuscus, MCZ 1012; d, Megophrys lateralis, AM 23549; all X 3. f = frontoparietal; p = prootic; s = squamosal; . . =z margin of prootic covered by squamosal; cartilage stippled. model. The skull height (especially an- teriorly) is the major feature in doubt, but as given it is approximately intermediate between the flattened skulls of Megophrys and the domed skulls of P
. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College. Zoology. Figure 11. Right posterior half of pelobatid skulls, dorsal view, a, Scaphiopus h. holbrooki, MCZ 58003; b, Eope/obafes guthriei, MCZ 3493; c, Pelobates fuscus, MCZ 1012; d, Megophrys lateralis, AM 23549; all X 3. f = frontoparietal; p = prootic; s = squamosal; . . =z margin of prootic covered by squamosal; cartilage stippled. model. The skull height (especially an- teriorly) is the major feature in doubt, but as given it is approximately intermediate between the flattened skulls of Megophrys and the domed skulls of Pelobates and Scaphiopus. The bone outlines do not allow much deviation either way from the outline suggested here. There is a well- defined groove between the frontoparietals, but a distinct suture cannot be seen. The exact shape and placement of the nasals is conjectural, but the arrangement given is consistent with what remains of the bones. The photograph of the specimen (Fig. 1) does not allow confirmation of all bone outlines; this was only made possible by comparing many photographs taken with light coming from different angles and from drawings made at the time of study of the original specimen. Eopelobates hinschei (Kuhn, 1941) This species was originally described as Halleobatrachus hinschei by Kuhn (1941, p. 353) from the middle Eocene Geiseltal deposits near Halle, Germany. As Spinar (1967, p. 218) correctly pointed out, this species belongs to the Pelobatidae rather than to the Palaeobatrachidae. Much of the other material described by Kuhn also belongs to the genus Eopelobates. All the characters of the genus are clearly visible in this series of specimens. The photograph given here (Fig. 10) shows one of the best skulls available. Kuhn gave six generic and seven specific names to this sample, but on the basis of proportions alone, the fossils can easily be related and demon- strated as a growth series (Fig. 25). Hecht (1963, p. 23) has already commented ac- curate
Size: 2139px × 1168px
Photo credit: © Book Worm / Alamy / Afripics
License: Licensed
Model Released: No
Keywords: ., bookauthorharvarduniversity, bookcentury1900, booksubjectzoology
