THE CARBONIFEROUS. 61 



tioned, found in 1859. Hylonomus Lyelli had a far more ornate Bet 

 of cutaneous appendages, as evidenced by remains of skin found 

 associated with its bones, also in 1859.* The tree of 1876 contains 

 no cuticular remains referable to this species. 



4. Remains of Hylonomus. 



The bones of this genus are all, I think, referable to //. Lyelli, and 

 to specimens about the size of those previously found. They throw 

 little additional light on its character, except to indicate that it was 

 probably very abundant, and to render it probable that the specimens 

 formerly described were adult. Two of the skulls in the tree of 1876 

 are better preserved than those previously known, and confirm the 

 statement already made as to the smoothness of the bones and the 

 greater cranial elevation as compared with other batrachians of the 

 Carboniferous period. This is indicated, among other things, by the 

 skulls lying upon one side, which is not found to be the case with 

 the other species. 



In the admirable Report by Cope on the Batrachians of the Coal 

 formation of Ohio,-{- he places Hylonomus in the same family, Tudi- 

 tanidce, with J)endrerpeto?u This I think does not express its true 

 affinities. The moje elongate and narrow skull, with smooth bones, 

 the differently formed vertebra?, the teeth with non-plicated dentine, 

 the different microscopic structure of the bone, the more ornate dermal 

 appendages, all separate these animals from the labyrinthodonts, and 

 entitle them, as I have formerly held, to a distinct position as an 

 order or sub-order, for which I proposed in 1S63 the name Micro- 

 sauria. I observe that in the Report on the Labyrinthodonts, pre- 

 pared by Mr Miall for the British Association in 1873, and in the 

 Tabular View appended to it in 1874, while the group Microsauria 

 is retained, Dendrerpeton is placed in it, as well as Hylerpeton 

 and Hylonomus. This I think is an error, in so far as the first 

 genus is concerned. I may add my continued conviction that 

 Hylonomus and its allies present many points of approach to the 

 lacertian reptiles, which I hope in future to be able to work out 

 more in detail. 



Several masses of coprolite, filled with small broken bones, were 

 obtained in breaking up the material surrounding the skeletons. I 

 presume these bones belong to one or other of the smaller species of 

 Hylonomus ; but I have not yet found any of them to be sufficiently 



* Journal Geol. Soc, vol. xvi., also " Air-breathers, - ' 1863. 

 t Palaeontology of Ohio, vol. ii. 



