Manchester Memoirs, Vol. I Hi. ( 1 909), No. "X'Z. 1 3 



tracks have now been obtained from the Cummingstone 

 quarries and Bishop Mill quarrj', and doubtful ones from 

 the Nairn quarries (Gordon, '93), but only the Cumming- 

 stone ones have been described. 



Chelichnoid Forms. — Chelichmis megacheirus, Hux., is 

 shown in Plate II., Figs. 6m, 6p, and 6b. Huxley regarded 

 the larger prints as those of the manus, but in this I 

 think he was misled by their position in the track. This 

 form appears to be closely allied to CI. 7 from Mansfield 

 {Plate /., Fig. i). There was one print from Mansfield, 

 which has unfortunately been mislaid, which showed the 

 correspondence much more closely. In the Mansfield form 

 the larger print is certainly that of the pes. In both tracks, 

 the larger prints are not quite so widely separated laterally 

 as the smaller ones. Both forms appear to have been 

 webbed. Huxley remarked that the Dumfries prints 

 were the only ones with which this form could be 

 compared. It may be termed CI. 5. 



The track figured by Brickenden {loc. cit.) is a typical 

 small chelichnoid track, which may be matched perfectly 

 by some of the tracks from Penrith. Unfortunately all 

 the individual prints are imperfect. 



Unclassified form. — Figs. 7 and 8, from Huxley's 

 plate XV. (Hux., '77), indicate a print which is clearly 

 allied very closely to .v2 {Plate II., Fig. 9) from Penrith, and 

 to XT, {Plate /., Fig. 3) from Mansfield. The manus in this 

 form is probably not so small relatively to the pes as 

 would at first sight appear. Behind the proper print in 

 Fig. 7 is shown a blurred impression which in Huxley's 

 figure might at first sight be taken for a part of this print, 

 I have no doubt that it is really a pair of imperfect impres- 

 sions accidentally juxtaposed, but lest there should be any 



