lO HiCKLING, British Permian Footprints. 



Mansfield {Plate /., Fig. 4). The impressions of pes and 

 manus are indistinguishable, and in all the impression of 

 digit V. is absent. In the single Mansfield print there is 

 a doubt about this digit. Certainly a digit exists in the 

 position shown in Fig. 4, but unfortunately it is mixed up 

 with another small footprint, and it is not impossible that 

 it may really belong to that print. 



The prints in this Edinburgh track are closely set, 

 with the right and left sides well separated. 



Fig. 16, Plate III.., shows a print of x\ from this 

 locality. This impression is deeper than the one from 

 Mansfield; hence the "sole" is marked to some extent 

 and the claws appear longer. Otherwise the prints arc 

 identical. The impressions form a normal track with 

 short stride, and no apparent difference between the marks 

 of pes and manus. Specimen in Edinburgh collection. 



Aetibates triassae, Jard., is a very unsatisfactory, but 

 very distinctive footprint, which is sufficiently illustrated by 

 Fig. 24, from Jardine's plate IX. Each print consists of 

 2 to 4 round or irregular impressions, most characteristically 

 of 3, forming a triangle. The most remarkable feature is 

 the great variability of the impressions. Without further 

 comment, this track may be left for future reference with 

 the designation Ab. \. 



Several other tracks are figured and named by Jardine 

 which cannot be properly characterised, though they are 

 useful for reference. 



Clicliclinus titan^ Jard., is a large print, 9 or 10 inches 

 in length, and about the the same in breadth. Successive 

 prints separated only by 7 or Sin. Width across entire 

 track 2\ feet. (Jard., '53, p. 10). A specimen is in the 

 Edinburgh collection. 



Chelichmts gigas, Jard. Large oval impressions about 



