].$*2i.] Lacerta Giganlea of the Ancient World. 191 



the first of the kind that have been found in this territory. It 

 would, therefore, be desirable that whoever, either now is, or 

 may hereafter be, in possession of similar, would contribute what 

 they can to our information respecting this genus deperditian by 

 kindly communicating their observations to the Royal Academy 

 of Sciences, accompanying the same with either drawings or 

 casts. 



If we compare the dimensions of the bones belonging to the 

 Maestri cht and to the Vicentine animal with our own fragments 

 we shall have reason to suppose that ours was as yet very 

 young, and had hardly attained a quarter of its full growth, 

 which Cuvier computes to be 23 feet in length. 



Moreover as these fragments contain two thigh bones, of 

 which no part is preserved in the remains found on St. Peter's 

 Hill, they satisfactorily prove that this animal was no cetaceum 

 no fish, but actually a lacerta. 



The form of the head has so great a resemblance to that of the 

 lacerta monitor, and differs so entirely from the heads of cetacea, 

 fish, and even the crocodile, that there no longer remains any 

 room to dispute the propriety with which Adrian Camper has 

 assigned the Maestricht animal to the lacerta genus — a judo-e- 

 ment to which Cuvier completely assents. 



As there is not the least appearance of scales belonging either 

 to the neck or the back, of which there are an abundance to be 

 perceived in the small crocodile or gavial in my possession, it is 

 impossible to conjecture this animal to have belonged to the 

 crocodile species. Ammonites were found in the vicinity of this 

 lacerta animal, as is universally the case in all the known 

 instances of fossil crocodiles, gavials, and lacertae, one proof of 

 which, among others, is the Dresden petrifaction, of which a 

 copy has been made for this Academy. 



The compressed and distorted form of the head, and the vio- 

 lence that is apparent in many places, are remarkable, since thev 

 indicate some great external force to which either the animal 

 itself, or its skeleton, must have been subjected, as is likewise 

 the case in the crocodilus priscus. And what power must have 

 been exerted not only to flatten the conical head, but even to 

 force out and to break the teeth, as we see has been done here ! 



If I may be permitted to decide, from my own anatomical and 

 pathological knowledge, I should say that this compression of the 

 head was not effected during the dry, friable, and brittle skeleton 

 state, since, in such a case, owing to the equal force, the upper 

 jaw would have been broken in another direction; or, at least, 

 would not have been so perfect as it now is on the left side. The 

 injury rather appears to have been done in the living animal, on 

 account of the periosteum and top of the head still retaining 

 together the fragments of the bones, notwithstanding their 

 (inshed condition. 



Hence it appoars to me to bo * subject well worth attentive 



