380 Annals of the South African Museum. 



border. The proximal end of the humerus is very broad, its upper 

 border convex. Below the processus lateralis the lateral border is 

 strongly concave. The shaft of the bone is narrow. The ulna is 

 just over two-thirds the length of the humerus. 



The spina posterior of the ilium is broad and truncated, the spina 

 anterior short. The acetabulum is well in the anterior half of the 

 bone. The pubis has a regularly concave lateral border and a 

 straight medial border. The pubic plate is narrowest near its distal 

 end, but it is slightly broader at the extreme end. The appearance 

 of the pelvis has suggested to van Hoepen that there was a complete 

 longitudinal symphysis between the pubes and ischia of the two 

 sides of the animal. 



The femur is pronouncedly sigmoidal in lateral view; the fourth 

 trochanter is in the upper half of the bone. The tibia has a very 

 large proximal end, and the tuberositas tibiae did not project very 

 far. There is no thickening at the distal end of the bone. Tire 

 hind feet are entire in the type. The fourth metatarsal is slightly 

 longer than metatarsal II. Metatarsal III is more slender than 

 the latter. 



Discussing the affinities of the type van Hoepen says: ,,The nearest 

 relations of our form are amongst the Plateosauridae and Anchisauridae. 

 and it is clear that it belongs to either one or the other. The 

 Plateosauridae are all medium sized to large Dinosaurs with fifteen 

 dorsal vertebrae, whereas .our form is small and has most probably 

 fourteen dorsal vertebrae, agreeing in this respect with the Anchi- 

 sauridae. There is further agreement with the Anchisauridae in the 

 relation of the lower arm to the humerus; radius and ulna are 

 longer than half the humerus. The length of the shaft of the humerus. 

 stands to the length of the whole humerus as 58 : 93 or O62. This 

 relation brings our form in close proximity of Thecodontosaunis 

 antiques. Taking all these facts into consideration it seems clear 

 that our form is an Anchisaurid. 



Comparison with Anchisaurus shows that the dorsal vertebrae are 

 comparatively longer, and that the pubes of the two forms differ 

 greatly. Massospondi/las is a much larger form. The distal ends of 

 its ischia are coalesced, and each is more or less triangular in section. 

 In our form the distal ends of the ischia are flattened through 

 pressure, but it is difficult to accept that their section was originally 

 triangular. Moreover, they are not coalesced. The relations of the 

 ileum of Massospondylus carinatus are different from those in our 

 form, for it is longer than the latter with regard to its shortest 

 height above the acetabulum. Relatively the dorsal vertebrae of our 



