348 Miscellaneous* 



portions of the postcranial skeleton of what; appears to be the 

 orii^inal type ; and as there is evidence of the presence of large 

 dorsal scntes, he proposes to remove most of the other so-called 

 Parciasaurs to other genera. The classical specimen figured by 

 Seeley and represented in most geological textbooks becomes 

 Britdi/saKrus. The magnificent Cape Town specimen beccrmes 

 Emhrithosaurtis. But a more serious matter is that our South- 

 African Pnreiasaurtts zone, accepted by all our geological surveys 

 and textbooks, becomes the Tapinocephalus zone. One might put 

 up with the inconvenience if it cleared up all the confusion, but 

 unfortunately it does not. All tho larger Pareiasaurs are un- 

 doubtedly very closely allied one to the other, and were it not for 

 the condition of the dermal scutes would be placed in one genus. 

 All those s])eciraen8 in which the dorraal scutes are unknowr) will 

 have to be left in a kind of limbo. Thus, even Watson cannot tell 

 us whether Pareinsnurus hombkhns, of which there are two fair 

 skeletons in the British Museum, belongs to Pareiasaurus, Brady- 

 saurus, or EnihritJiosaiirus. 



Now, while Watson's conclusions may, strictly speaking, be 

 perfectly sound, one would like some way out of the inconvenience, 

 and I might suggest the following modus vivendi. 



In palaeontology a genus and species cannot have qiiite the same 

 relative value as in living forms, as we can never know much of 

 hairs, feathers, or epidermal scales. If a herpetologist were given 

 the skulls of one hundred species of Li/gosoma, it is pretty certain 

 he would not find many differences ; and if they were found in an 

 Eocene deposit, most probably all would be referred to a very few 

 species. In fact, a genus of recent herpetology is about equivalent 

 to a species of the palaeontologist ; and considering that the 

 palaeontologist has usually only imperfect skeletons to work on, 

 it can never be otherwise. 



With regard to Pareiasaurus, what I should suggest is to regard 

 the condition of the dermal scutes as of merely subgeneric value, 

 and to keep all the large Pareiasaurs in the original genus Pareia- 

 saurus. If one wishes to subdivide the genus, one can place in a 

 distinct subgenus any forms whose scutes appear to differ con- 

 aiderably from the type. The British Museum fine skeleton would 

 be Pareiasaurus (Bradi/saurus) haini, if one wished to be very 

 precise, and the Cape Town mounted specimens Pareiasaurus 

 {Emhrithosaurus) schivarzi, and Pareiasaurus (Pareiasuchus) perin- 

 gueyi ; but for the majority of mankind the generic name Pareia- 

 saurus would be sufficient, and the Pareiasaurus zone would 

 remain as the zone where the Pareiasaurs first appear. 



I remain, &c., 



K. Beoom. 



