652 S. W. WILLISTON 



brief notice of other less well known European genera will be 

 necessary. 



Phanerosaurus naumanii H. V. Meyer. The type and known 

 remains of this genus and species consist of a series of four dor- 

 sal and a sacral vertebrae. They can not be distinguished 

 from corresponding ones of Diadectes, and are doubtless truly 

 cotj^losaurian. 



Stephanospondylus Stappenb'eck. This genus was based upon 

 the species pugnax Geinitz and Deichmuller, referred by its 

 authors to Phanerosaurus. So far as the skull and vertebrae are 

 concerned they seem to be genuinely cotylosaurian, but the 

 pectoral and pelvic girdles, if correctly recognized and figured by 

 Stappenbeck, are very aberrant, hot only from the Cotylosauria 

 but from all early reptiles. The clavicular girdle is unlike any- 

 thing known among American reptiles, and seems more like that 

 of a temnospondyl. The coracoid and pubis also are unlike 

 anything known among early (or late) reptiles. I suspect that 

 the so-called coracoid is in reality the pubis, and that the so- 

 called pubis is something else, possibly a sacral rib. If it be 

 really a pubis it indicates a pelvis of a radically distinct type, 

 one with a large puboischiadic vacuity, as in modern reptiles. 



Stereorhachis dominans Gaudry. The relationships of this 

 genus with the American Pelycosauria in the narrow sense have 

 long been recognized. Thevenin describes and figures the 

 typical specimens and refers them to the Pelycosauria. None 

 of its characters seems discrepant, so far as they are known. 

 Stereorhachis comes from the lower part of the Autunian of 

 France, possibly of contemporaneous age with the Clear Fork 

 beds of Texas. It is associated stratigraphically with Actinodon, 

 a genus closely allied to Eryops. 



Callibrachion Gaudry i Boule. This genus was referred by 

 Case;^* to the Pelycosauri notwithstanding the reputed opistho- 

 coely of the cervical vertebrae, and the high coronoid of the 

 mandible. Huene has since showed*^ that both these characters 

 were erroneously ascribed to the genus, though he objects to its 



" Revision of the Pelycosauria, 1907. 



" Centralbl. fur Mineralogie, p. 534, 1905. 



