Augtist I, 1889] 



NATURE 



325 



fully exhibited on both sides. It may, however, be worth 

 the consideration of the authorities of the Museum, 

 whether this skeleton might not be more easily under- 

 stood by the uninitiated if the various bones were labelled 

 with their scientific, and perhaps also with their popular, 

 names, since it is somewhat puzzling, even to the expert, 

 to name them all at a glance. 



As already mentioned, the skull of the skeleton was 

 figured by Sir R. Owen in 1861, and the acquisition of 

 the remainder of the skeleton enabled that eminent 

 palaeontologist to confirm his reference of the skull to 

 the genus Scelidosatirus. The body-skeleton formed, 

 indeed, the subject of a second memoir published by 

 the Pateontographical Society in 1862, with eleven quarto 

 plates ; but we venture to say that these illustrations do 

 not render justice to the specimen, since they only include 

 separate portions. To fully illustrate this unrivalled 

 skeleton would, indeed, require a double quarto plate, in 

 which the whole specimen should be shown, with the in- 

 dividual bones duly labelled ; and a task thus remains 

 for some zealous palaeontologist to fulfil. 



The accompanying figure is an attempt at a restoration 

 of the skeleton in the natural position of the animal. 



The presence of a predentary bone in advance of the 

 mandibular symphysis is based on the occurrence of this 

 element in Iguanodon and the allied Stegosaurus ; while 

 the five digits in the hand are likewise introduced from 

 the evidence of the latter genus. 



The importance of this specimen is that it is the only 

 English Dinosaur, with the exception of the small Hypsi- 

 lophodon, which shows all the bones of the skeleton in 

 position; and although it is of course exceedingly easy to 

 be wise after the event, yet we cannot help thinking that 

 this skeleton might have afforded its describer the oppor- 

 tunity of being the first to determine the true nature and 

 position of the bones of the pelvis in this group of Dino- 

 saurs — a problem which was solved in a paper commu- 

 nicated to the Geological Society in 1876. The two 

 parallel bones lying on the inferior aspect of the hinder 

 part of the trunk of this specimen, and directed back- 

 wardly, could not, indeed, possibly have been taken for 

 anything else but the pubis and ischium ; and the re- 

 semblance of the latter bone to the problematical " os 

 cuvieri,'' or so-called clavicle, of Mantell's imperfect 

 skeleton of Iguanodon, which has for many years been 

 in the Museum, might have suggested the homology of 



Approximate restoration of the skeleton of SreHdosaurns harrisoni. from the I ower Lias of CharmDUth. Greatly reduced. The vertebral column has 

 been restored hom Ig7ianodon, and the spines and chevrons of the vertebrae are, not improbibly, too long : the ossified tendons are conjectural. 



the two bones. Curiously enough, however, the pubis and 

 ischium, which are certainly the most remarkable bones 

 in the whole skeleton, are not figured, and apparently not 

 even mentioned, in the original memoir. 



Finally, it may perhaps interest some of our readers 

 who do not follow the ever-changing classifications of the 

 palaeontologists, to mention that the genus Scelidosatirus 

 is the type of a family referred by Prof. O. C. Marsh to 

 his sub-order Stegosauria. Other authorities, however, 

 consider that this sub-order is not really separable from 

 the Ornithopoda of the same writer, which includes the 

 Iguanodons. Accepting this emendation, the Ornitho- 

 poda will be a sub-order of Dinosauria, including all 

 those forms in which the pelvis has a structure com- 

 parable to that of the Struthious birds ; while the remain- 

 ing members of that order may be classed in the sub-order 

 Theropoda, as represented by Megalosaurus, and the 

 •Sauropoda, as represented by Cetiosaurus and Feloro- 

 saurus. Recently, indeed, it has been proposed to 

 abolish the name Dinosauria, and to group the Thero- 

 .poda and Sauropoda together under the new name of 

 ■ Saurischia, and to apply the name Ornithischia to the 



Ornithopoda. The name Dinosauria has, however, be- 

 come such a household word, that its suppression cannot 

 be admitted ; and if it be eventually found advisable to 

 adopt the proposed division of these reptiles into two 

 distinct orders, the preferable course would be to restrict 

 the name Dinosauria to the so-called Saurischia, since 

 Megalosaurus and Cetiosaurus were the forms first men- 

 tioned in the original notice of the order in 1840 ; while 

 the earlier names, such as Ornithopoda, might be retained 

 for the second order. In this connection we may, how- 

 ever, quote a remark made by an eminent man of science 

 at a meeting of the Geological Society, to the effect that 

 " he was inclined to think that the progress of knowledge 

 tended rather to break down the lines of demarcation 

 between groups supposed to be distinct, than to authorize 

 the creation of fresh divisions." R. L. 



NOTES. 



We print elsewhere the Technical Instruction Bill introduced 

 into the House of Cotnmons last week by Sir W. Hart Dyke. 

 The Government is to be congratulated on having presented a 



