-i46 Prof. H. G. Seeley on 



comparison with Bliopalodon was omitted. An affinity is 

 recognized with Dinosaurs and Crocodiles in the articulation 

 of the ribs by a head and tubercle. The sacrum is said to 

 include at least three vertebrae ; and there are said to be 

 obscure indications of a clavicle. 



In 1869-70 (Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc. vol. xxvi. p. 42) 

 Prof. Huxley adduced evidence that these animals might 

 be conveniently classed under the Dinosauria, and he 

 doubted their generic separation. In revising the state of 

 knowledge at that time he regarded the teeth of one as 

 Scelidosauroid and of the other as Megalosauroid. All the 

 bones are spoken of as Thecodontosaurian, without attempt 

 to refer them to the two generic types. The coracoid of 

 Messrs. Riley and Stutchbury was interpreted as a frag- 

 mentary ilium, and the radius as a tibia. Prof, rluxley may 

 be inferred to have doubted the identification of the ischium, 

 since it is mentioned, like the coracoid and radius, in inverted 

 commas ; but no other interpretation is suggested. 



Professor v. Zittel has kept these genera separate (Handb. 

 d. Pala^cntologie, iii. pp. 721, 722), and has given a good 

 iigure of the serrations upon the tooth of Palceosaurus. 



After examining the collection exhibited in the Bristol 

 Museum, I regard the ischium of 1836, which is still em- 

 bedded in the matrix, as an imperfect example of a 

 humerus. From this it would follow that the deposit contains 

 two types of humerus as well as two types of teeth. 



If the specimen of humerus originally figured in 1840 (/. c. 

 pi. XXX. tig. 1) is associated with the jaw with vertically 

 serrated teeth as Thecodontosaurus^ then the humeri nos. 118 

 and 57, Bristol Museum, and the specimen in question (no. 66) 

 may be the type of another genus, such as is indicated by 

 the teeth of Fakeosaurus. 



If the ilium which Prof. Huxley figured (Quart. Journ. 

 Geol. Soc. vol. xxvi. pi. iii. fig. 7) is accepted as the type 

 ilium of Fakeosaurus, then the iliac bones preserved in the 

 slab numbered 63 must be referred to two species. That 

 which shows the external aspect of the left ilium is not unlike 

 the specimen just referred to, except that it is smaller. It 

 has the same general tbrm as tiie ilium oi Zanclodon Qaenstedti 

 (Phil. Trans. Eoy. Soc. vol. B xlvi. 1889, p. 283). There is 

 the same kind of open acetabular arch, the same prolonga- 

 tion forward of the pubic pedicle, a like convexity of the 

 superior iliac crest, which has similar anterior and posterior 

 extension. The only differences which could be regarded as 

 specific are that the Bristol fossil has the ischiac pedicle 

 relatively rather wider, and the posterior process of the crest 



