Boyer diss 2009 1046..

2.13: 50). The suture with the supraoccipital is difficult to locate due to fusion; however,
it appears that the supraoccipital was very narrow ventrally and comprised only a narrow
median segment of the foramen magnum’s dorsal margin. The occipital condyle
measures 2.83 mm in dorsoventral depth by 1.95 mm mediolaterally. The foramen
magnum is 6.87 mm by 4.51 mm. The jugular process projects laterally by 1.30 mm. The
bilateral distance between jugular processes can be reconstructed by measuring laterally
from the midpoint of the foramen magnum. The value would have been roughly 12.2
mm. The contribution of the supra-exoccipital complex to the posterior margin of the
skull is concave in dorsoventral profile due to posterior projection of the nuchal crest
(Figs. 2.11, 13: 51). The dorsoventral depth of the supraoccipital along the midline from
the top of the foramen magnum to the top of the nuchal crest is 6.02 mm. The right lateral
edge of this complex (Fig. 2.13: 52) seems to correspond to the sutural margin with the
pars canalicularis of the petrosal, which has been displaced. Thus the unilateral distance
from the midline to the most lateral point on the right exoccipital is 8.71 mm.
Dentary.— The left dentary was also preserved with the skull. Some pieces of the
ramus are visible underneath the zygomatic (Fig. 2.10). The dentary and mandibular
dentition were described by Gingerich et al. (1983), but neither was figured. Thus, the
mandibular teeth are shown here in various views (Fig. 2.14).
Nannodectes gidleyi AMNH 17388
No aspect of this specimen has ever been illustrated except a schematic diagram
in MacPhee et al. (1983). However, as indicated above, its morphology is incorrectly
attributed to USNM 309902. Furthermore, both Simpson’s (1935) and MacPhee et al.’s
53