1894- 



SOME NEW BOOKS. 



307 



have little or no affinity with the Anomodonts, and show Lacertilian 

 resemblances, we are again so staggered that, did we not recall the cir- 

 cumstance that he includes Sphenodon among Lizards, we can hardly 

 realise that he intends to be serious. Has the author, we may ask, ever 

 compared the pelvis and humerus of Pariasaurus with those of a 

 typical Anomodont ? and if so, does he still hold the opinion he 

 expresses ? In the same section we find a great deal of discussion as 

 to which apertures are the posterior nares in the skulls of the African 

 and Elgin forms, and much importance is attached to the conclusion 

 reached. We would, however, remind the author that the Chelonia 

 and Crocodilia show that the position of these apertures is of 

 extremely little classificatory import. Even if he be right in stating 

 that they have the same position as in Sphenodon, this in no way 



Superior and right lateral aspects of cranium of Elginia mirabilis, together with 

 a side view of the anterior teeth. About one-quarter natural size. 



shows that the forms under discussion are more nearly related to 

 Lizards than to Anomodonts ; since we thought every tyro knew the 

 structural resemblances between the tuatera and the last-named group. 



Although we regret we cannot congratulate the author on the 

 manner in which he has handled an admittedly difficult subject, 

 yet science is indebted to him for having so carefully restored the 

 skulls of the Elgin Anomodonts, and for having provided us with 

 figures which admit of our drawing our own conclusions. 



We may add that the close similarity of the Elgin fauna to that 

 of the African Karoo beds, and the Indian Panchet and Maleri beds, 

 serves to confirm the original view as to the Triassic age of both the 

 latter. 



R. L. 



X2 



