1893. TH^ RESTORATION OF EXTINCT ANIMALS. 139 



While on the subject of Dinosaurs, we must take exception to 

 the author's throwing any doubt (page 62) on the relationship exis- 

 ting between these reptiles and birds, which we venture to consider 

 one of the best established zoological facts. Few, however, at the 

 present day, would be disposed to assert that the Ratite birds (p. 63) 

 — qua Ratites — are the direct descendants of Dinosaurs. The author 

 is still more "flabby" with regard to the relationship between 

 Dinosaurs and Crocodiles (p. 63), which is likewise a well-established 

 fact ; and if his own want of anatomical knowledge did not permit 

 his perceiving their connection, he might at least have followed those 

 who are entitled to speak with some authority on the subject. 

 Instead of this, he goes out of his way to say that, while such con- 

 nection may be "quite possible, and even probable," it cannot be 

 considered certain. 



To resume our survey of the plates, the restorations of the 

 Brontosaur and Megalosaur (pis. iv., vi.) appear to us decidedly 

 more successful than that of the Horned Dinosaur ; although in the 

 Megalosaur the fore-limbs are not quite satisfactory. In both these 

 figures the objectionably prominent heel given to the Horned 

 Dinosaur is wanting. As regards the Iguanodon (pi. vii.), it appears 

 to us unnatural that, while the elbow-joint is represented as com- 

 pletely free from and below the body, the thigh is almost entirely 

 enclosed in the integument ; and we have also doubts whether the 

 creature was really so short-legged as it is represented. When we 

 contrast with it the figure of the Scelidosaur (pi. viii.), we are, 

 indeed, surprised to find such a marked difference made between the 

 two animals in these respects, and we are certainly not prepared to 

 admit that, while the one was digitigrade, the other was plantigrade. 

 Anyway, the different position of the elbow-joint in the two forms 

 clearly shows that at least one of the restorations must be incorrect 

 in this particular. With regard to the restoration of the armour in 

 the Scelidosaur, we are aware that the artist has followed an 

 attempted reconstruction of the skeleton, but, nevertheless, the huge 

 spines on the shoulder-blades do not appear altogether natural. 

 In putting the creature in an upright posture, we have, however, 

 every reason to believe that the artist, in spite of certain criticism to 

 the contrary, is fully justified. Judging from the skeleton of the so- 

 called Stegosaur, we are inclined to think that in the restoration (pi. 

 ix.) the hind-quarters and limbs do not give any adequate idea of 

 their immense height and power as compared with the fore-parts. 



Of the other Secondary reptiles, such as the Pterodactyles, 

 Plesiosaurs, Ichthyosaurs. and Mosasaurs, the restorations appear, on 

 the whole, as satisfactory as the materials on which they are based 

 will admit. It was, however, unfortunate that the specimen of an 

 Ichthyosaur referred to in an appendix was not described in time to 

 admit of its forming the basis for the plate of that group. In treating 

 of the Plesiosaur on page 50, we think it might have been well to 



