NO. 1666. OSTEOLOGY OF CAMPT08AURU8—GILM0RE. 267 



Ciimnoria being considered a synonym. In 1890" he characterized 

 the genus as follows : 



Teeth simpler than in the typical group of Igudnodon. Cervical vertebra; 

 opisthocoelous ; sacrals flattened interiorly and not anchylosed ; manus with five 

 normal digits. Ilium typically deep with short and iMjinted pre- and postace- 

 tabular processes, the latter having a distinct ventral plate; pubis relatively 

 stout and long as ischium. Femur slightly longer than tibia, with curved 

 shaft and pendant inner trochanter; typically four functional digits in pes. 



In 1894,'' Marsh published a restoration of the skeleton of Gamp- 

 tosaurns dispar, and additional characters relating to the osteological 

 structure were noted. Four months later/' he briefly described the 

 two species, C. medius and G. nmius, and at the same time character- 

 ized the genus as follows : 



Premaxillaries edentulous with horny beak. Teeth large, irregular, and few 

 in number. A supra-orbital fossa. Cervical vertebrse long and opisthocoelous. 

 Lumbars present. Five free vertebrae in sacrum, with peg-and-notch articula- 

 tion. Limb bones hollow. Fore limbs small. Sternum unossified. Five func- 

 tional digits in manus. Prepubls long and broad, iiostpubis elongated. Femur 

 longer than tibia. Metatarsals short. Three functional digits in pes: the first 

 rudimentary and the fifth wanting. 



In 1895 ^ Marsh redefined the family CamptosauridtTe, retaining 

 in it only the genus Ganiptosaurus, the other genera being removed 

 to separate families proposed for them. This definition was re- 

 peated, with a few additions, in 1896, in his "' Dinosaurs of North 

 America " ^ 



In 1899, Nopcsa f gives a brief preliminary description of a new 

 species, G. inkeyi^ from the Cretaceous of Hungary, and in 1901 ^ 

 placed the genus under the subfamily Camptosaurida\ 



In 1902, Hay '' included under the family Camptosauridse ^ the 



« Cat. Fossil lleptilia and Amphibia in Brit. Mus., Suppl. to Ft. 4, 1890, p. 259. 



6Amer. Journ. Sci., XLVII, 1894, pp. 245, 24G, pi. vi. 



c Idem, XLVIII, 1894, pp. 85, 88. 



^ Idem, L, 1895, p. 497. 



ei6th Ann. Kept. U. S. Geol. Surv., Pt. 1, 1S9G, p. 243. 



^Denli. k. Akad. Wien, LXVIII, 1899 (1900), p. 579. 



9 Foldtani Kozluny, Budapest, XXXI, 1901, p. 210. 



''Bull. No. 179, U. S. Geol. Surv., 1902, p. 501. 



^ Laosauridse Marsh has priority over Camptosauridoe Marsh, and if 

 Laosaurus is to be included in the same family with VamiJtosuurus, the former 

 name should be retained. On the other hand, if the two forms represent 

 distinct families, as originally proposed by Marsh, Camptosanridjie is repre- 

 sented by the genus Caniptosaurus, and Laosaurid:e by the genera Laosaurus 

 and Dryosatirits. The superfamily Iguanodontidea proposed by Hay in his 

 Bibliography and Catalogue of the Fossil Vertebra ta of North America (p. 

 500), should then include the families Camptosauridiie, Laosaurid;e, Nanosau- 

 ridie, Trachodoutidpe, and the European Iguanodontidai and Hypsilophodontidre. 

 For obvious reasons, Thespcsius Leidy should be removed from the Iguano- 

 dontidae to the Trachodontidse. 



