The bony palate ofUromastix Merrem

  • Rameshwar Dayal Saksena

Summary and conclusions

The author has studied the structure of the bony palate and its component bones in detail in three species ofUromastix : viz., U. hardwickii,U. acanthinurus andU. œgyptius. The following facts, discovered by him, are new.
  1. (1)

    The three species show marked differences in the anterior extension of the pterygoid, the form of the pterygo-palatine suture, the relative development of the quadrate process of the pterygoid and the relation of the pterygoid to the prevomer.

  2. (2)

    The pterygoid does not meet the prevomer in any species. InUromastix hardwickii, however, it shows a condition closely similar to stage R in the development ofSphenodon: a fact of great interest.

  3. (3)

    A process, hitherto not recorded, has been described on the ventral inner end of the transpalatine.

  4. (4)

    The transpalatine embraces the maxillo-jugal suture between a dorsal and a ventral process, developed at its outer end, so that the formation of the palatine foramen inUromastix differs from that of other Saurian skulls.

  5. (5)

    The quadrate process of the pterygoid is fully developed inUromastix œgyptius, but it does not reach quite up to the quadrate inU. hardwickii. InU. acanthinurus it reaches only up to the anterior border of the quadrate.

  6. (6)

    There is nocartilaginous meniscus between the pterygoid and the basipterygoid process of the basisphenoid.

  7. (7)

    The palatine bears a scallop-shapedprevomerine process to which the prevomer is closely applied.



Posterior Margin Ventral Process Caustic Potash Component Bone Palatal Bone 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Bahl, K. N. “Skull ofVaranus monitor (Linn.),”Rec. Ind. Mus., 1937,39, 133–74.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Beddard, F. E. “Some notes on the cranial morphology of the mastigure lizardUromastix,”Proc. Zool. Soc, London, 1905,1, 2–9.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Beer, G. R. deThe Development of the Vertebrate Skull, Oxford, 1937.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Broom, R. “On the persistence of the mesopterygoid in certain reptilian skulls,”Proc. Zool. Soc, London, 1922, 455–60.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Busch, C. H. “Beiträge zur Kenntniss der Gaumenbildung bei den Reptilien,”Zool. Jahrb. (Anat. Abth.), 1898,11, 441–99.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    El-Toubi, M. R. “The osteology of the lizardScincus scincus (Linn.),”Bull. Fac. Sci., Egypt Univ., 1938,14.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Goodrich, E. S.Studies on the Structure and Development of Vertebrates, Macmillan, 1930.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Günther, A. “Contribution to the anatomy of Hatteria (Rhynchocephalus, Owen),”Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc, London, 1867,167, 595–629.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hoffmann, C. K. “Reptilien. II. Eidechsen und Wasserechsen,”Bronn’s Kl. u. Ordn. des Thierreichs, 1890.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Howes, G. B., and Swinnerton, H. H. “On the development of the skeleton of the Tuatara,Sphenodon punctatus; with remarks on the Egg, on the hatching, and on the hatched young,”Trans. Zool. Soc, London, 1901,16.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sedgwick, A.A Students’ Text-book of Zoology, London, 1905,2.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Siebenrock, F. “Das Skelet der Agamidæ,”SB. K. Akad. Wiss. Wien., 1895,104, 1112.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Versluys, Jan “Kranium und Visceralskelett der Sauropsiden. I. Reptilien,”Bolk. Göppert, Kallius, u. Lubosch’s Handb. d. vergl. Anat., 1936,4. Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Williston, S. W.The Osteology of Reptiles, Cambridge, 1925.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Indian Academy of Sciences 1942

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rameshwar Dayal Saksena
    • 1
  1. 1.Bahvant Rajput CollegeAgra

Personalised recommendations