1(52 On Thecodontosaurus and Palseosaurus. 



olecranon crest, wliicli extends proxiraally above tlie articula- 

 tion, somewhat like the cnemial crest of tlie tibia in Di'modo- 

 saiirus. The middle of the shaft is ^ incli wide. On the 

 supposition that the specimen is exposed on its internal 

 aspect, the condition of the distal end would present nothinj^ 

 remarkable. The relative shortness of the bone as compared 

 with tlie humerus of Palceosaurus seems to me in harmony 

 with what might be expected from the known proportions of 

 the fore and hind limbs. 



The onlv element of the fore limb, besides the ulna, which 

 can be recognized with any probability is a small metacarpal, 

 which is much more slender than the metatarsal bones and 

 more perfectly rounded at the distal extremity, and it is 

 shorter. 



In all parts of Palceosaurus which can be compared witii 

 ZanclodoHj such as the ilium, humerus, femur, and scapula, 

 there is a strong resemblance, though the differences are 

 marked in the tibia and details of the femur, especially the 

 distal end, so that it does not follow that the pubis and 

 ischium were quite the same in both generic types. The 

 proportions of Paheosaurus appear to have been those of a 

 Crocodile, though the tail was probably shorter. The femur 

 may be taken at 10^ inches long and the tibia at 7 inches ; so 

 that it is difficult to believe that the body of the animal was 

 lifted off the ground by the limbs. The humerus is 7 inches 

 long and the ulna nearly 5 inches long. The Crocodilian 

 character and size of the ilium are remarkable in relation to 

 this shortness of the limbs, as showing persistence of character 

 in the iliac bone, and presumably of habit in the animals 

 thus characterized. 



I desire to thank Mr. Swayne and Air. E. Wilson for the 

 facilities afforded me in examining the collection of bones in 

 the Bristol Museum. 



After these notes on English Triassic Saurischia were 

 written and in the hands of the Geological Society of London, 

 Professor Marsh published notes on Triassic Dinosaurs in the 

 ' American Journal of Science ' in June 1892. The text 

 which refers to the Bristol specimens is limited to a few 

 lines ; the fossils being classed under the genus Thecodonto- 

 sau7-u8, which is compared with the American genus Anchi- 

 saurus. 



