| OCR Text |
Show 1895.] LORIUS FLAVOPALLIATUS AND PSITTACUS ERITHACUS. 399 Eos rubra appears to agree with Lorius flavopalliatus in all the above points except- 1. Apex of prosopium not so much bent down though more so than in P. erithacus. 2. Prosopium longer and slenderer because its relative dorso-ventral extent in front of nares is less. 3. Anterior palatine foramen much larger. 4. Mid-junction of palatines antero-posteriorly shorter. 5. Posterior margin of palatines less concave. 6. Postero-ventral angle more produced and much sharper than in either L. flavopalliatus or P. erithacus. 7. N o marked prequadrate process of sphenotic process. 8. N o concavity at hinder end of tomial margin. 9. Middle of postaxial margin of bony palate more prominent- almost a process. 10. Cranium, seen above, longer and narrower. 11. Distinct antero-posteriorly extending transverse concavity in parietal region. 12. Prosopium, seen above, much longer. 13. Interorbital extent of cranium narrower absolutely and relatively. 14. Paroccipital processes rather less projecting postaxiad and their apices mesiad. 15. Median ridge of ventral aspect of prosopium behind bony palate much more marked. 16. Postaxial margin of prosopium between zygoma and lachrymal process rather more extensive and more concave. 17. Median supraoccipital prominence less marked. 18. Bony symphysis of mandible relatively as well as absolutely shorter. 19. Projection mesiad of inner articular process of mandible rather less. 20. Arch of symphysis (mandible being viewed from beneath) more acute-much as in P. erithacus. 21. Apices of angular processes rather more inflected mesiad. 22. Tomial margin between apex of symphysis and dental process slightly more concave. |
