The pectoral limb has an axial series of bones carrying hooklike flanges on their posterior edges. The other bones of the limb show little modification of form beyond the nearly flat, aquatic type seen in Rhipidistia. No distinct elbow or wrist joints are developed.
Characters of _Hesperoherpeton_ common to most primitive Amphibia, in contrast with Crossopterygii, are: Nares separated from edge of jaw; stapes having external process that may have met a tympanic membrane, thus giving the bone a sound-transmitting function. Apparently none of the opercular series was present.
There are two large palatal teeth, slightly labyrinthine in character, adjacent to each internal naris. The scapulocoracoid, as shown by Peabody (1958), is Anthracosaurian in structure, as are the long-stemmed clavicles. The limbs have digits rather than fin-lobes, although the digital number apparently is four and the number of bones in the manus is less than would be expected in a primitive amphibian. The vertebrae are similar to those of Ichthyostegids, as described by Jarvik (1952), except that the pleurocentra are much larger.
In addition to this remarkable combination of crossopterygian and amphibian characters, _Hesperoherpeton_ is specialized in certain features of the skull. The orbits are much enlarged, probably in correlation with the diminutive size of the animal, and this has been accompanied by loss of several bones. The frontal and squamosal nearly meet each other, and both form part of the rim of the orbit. The bones of the posterior part of the dermal roof are greatly reduced, and there is none behind the squamosal except the projecting tabular; there is no indication of quadratojugal, jugal, intertemporal or postparietal. The foramen magnum is enormous. The external surfaces of the bones of the skull are nearly smooth.
Is it possible that the "primitive" and "specialized" features of this animal are actually larval? Are they not just the kind of characters that would be expected in an immature, aquatic embolomere of Pennsylvanian time? For several reasons we do not think this is the case. Except for the anterior part of the braincase, there is no indication that the skeleton was not well ossified. The postaxial processes on the humerus, ulna and ulnare could scarcely have been larval features only, since they are so clearly homologous with those in adult Rhipidistia; a larval limb should indeed be simple, but its simplicity is unlikely to involve paleotelic adult characters. The scapulocoracoid of our specimen is of practically the same shape and size as that in the only other known individual, the type; this would be probable if both were adults, but somewhat less likely if they were larvae of a much larger animal. The form of the stapes, tabular and otic notch suggest a functional tympanic membrane, which could not have occurred in a gill-breathing larva. On the other hand, an adult animal of pigmy size might be expected to have large orbits, large otic capsules and a large foramen magnum.
