Gow, C. E.2015-01-082015-01-081977None0078-8554http://hdl.handle.net/10539/16219Main articleVan Heerden (1974) described and figured what he took to be an impression of the skin of Procolophon found with a typical assemblage of natural moulds of that animal. The stereophotographs in his Plate 4 seemed, however, to show sutures and the impressions of a few tiny sharp pointed teeth. Examination of the original shows that this is indeed the case. The accompanying explanatory sketch (fig. 1), which may be read in conjunction with Van Heerden's published photographs, shows that the pattern of dermal bones is typically amphibian and quite unlike that of Procolophon, as too are the teeth. The conclusion is reached that the specimen (QR 1597) shows normal bones of the skull and is not a skin impression.enProcolophon; skin impressionArticle