302 



NA TV RE 



[July 27, 1893 



SOME 



RECENT RESTORATIONS OF 

 DINOSAURS. 



T F palaeontologists are apt to be discouraged by the apparent 

 hopelessness of ever arriving at a satisfactory conclusion 

 as to the structure and affinities of some of the fossil vertebrates 

 with which they have to deal, they ought assuredly to take 

 fresh confidence from the marvellous advance which has taken 

 place of late years in our knowledge of the organisation of those 

 huge extinct reptiles commonly known as Dinosaurs. It was, 

 indeed, as far back as 1824 that the carnivorous genus Mega- 

 losaurus was first made known to us by Buckland, from specimens 

 obtained in the Great Oolite of Oxford, while the following year 

 saw the first announcement by Mantell of the now well-known 

 Iguanodon from the Sussex Wealden. These early pioneers in 

 this branch of palaeontology necessarily had, however, but a faint 

 conception of the real structure, and still less of the morpho- 

 logical importance of the group of reptiles whose former exist- 

 ence they were the first to reveal. It was long, indeed (in 

 spite of the efforts of anatomists like Cuvier, Owen, and Huxley), 

 before the riddle of the structure of the pelvis of the Iguanodon 

 was solved, the final solution being given by Mr. J. W. 

 Hulke in a paper read before the Geological Society on June 9, 

 1875, and published in the following year. The appearance of 

 this paper may be said, indeed, to mark the commencement of 

 the epoch of rapid advance in our knowledge of Dinosaurs, 

 for only two years afterwards (1878) was issued the first of Prof. 

 O. C. Marsh's important series of memoirs on the American 

 Jurassic Dinosaurs, from which it appears that the true nature 

 of the Iguanodont pelvis had been independently discovered in 

 America. About the same time that the first of the American 



of which is typified by the Iguanodon (Fig. 5), and the other by 

 Hypsirophus (Fig. 3). 



In the first, or crocodile-like group (Sauropsida), we have the 

 least specialised forms (Fig. l), all of which were habitually 

 four-footed, and distinguished by their solid limb-bones, and the 

 excavation of the sides of the bodies of most of their vertebrae by 

 large cavities, which may have been filled with air in the living 

 condition. The pelvis, as will be seen from our figure, is of a 

 comparatively normal structure, with a relatively short anterior 

 process to the upper bone or ilium,' and with the lower bones 

 known as the pubis and ischium respectively inclined forwards and 

 backwards after the crocodilian lashion. Our figure is taken 

 from Prof. Marsh's restoration of 1883, in which the skull is 

 imperfect, but in a later figure given by the Professor the head 

 is fully restored, with the characteristic spoon-like teeth in 

 position. In referring to this restoration Prof. Marsh observes 

 that " the diminutive head will first attract attention, as it is 

 smaller in proportion to the body than in any other reptile 

 hitherto known. The neck was very long and flexible. The 

 body was rather short. The legs and feet were massive, and 

 the bones all solid. The tail was very long and powerful. The 

 animal during life must have been nearly sixty feet in length, 

 and about fifteen feet in height. Its probable weight was more 

 than twenty tons. Brontosaiiriis was herbivorous in habit, and 

 its food was probably aquatic plants or other succulent vege- 

 tation. The skeleton here represented was found in the Upper 

 Jurassic, in Wyoming, west of the Rocky Mountain range." 



We may add that the first known members of this group were 

 discovered in British strata, the Cetiosaurus having been de- 

 scribed from the great oolite by Owen, in 1842, and the 

 Pelorosaurus by Mantell, in 1850, on the evidence of a stupendous 



Fig. I.— Kesioration cf ihe skeleton of llrontosaunts excelsus, y'o natural size. The skull is imperfect and relatively too small. (After Marsh.) 



paljEontologist's memoirs saw the light the scientific world was 

 startled by Monsieur E. Dupont's announcement of the dis- 

 covery of numerous entire skeletons of Iguanodons in fissures 

 of the Belgian coal-fields. And this unexpected and fortuitous 

 discovery enabled Monsieur L. DoUo to publish in April, 1883, 

 the completely restored skeleton of one of these monsters in its 

 natural attitude. 



Although as far back as 1861, Sir R. Owen had described the 

 greater portion of a Dinosaurian skeleton from the Dorsetshire 

 Lias, M. Dollo's figure was the first complete restoration of the 

 skeleton of a Dinosaur based on actual specimens. Scarcely, 

 however, had this figure appeared when Prof. Marsh (August, 

 '883) gave us the restoration of the entire skeleton of an 

 American Dinosaur (Brontosaurus),oi still more stupendous bulk 

 than the Iguanodon, and belonging to a group hitherto but very 

 imperfectly understood. From that date till 1891 (although 

 much important work on the group was being done) there seems, 

 however, to have been a lull in the work of Dinosaurian restora- 

 tion, no foreign worker having apparently made any attempts at 

 further complete restorations of the skeletons of these reptiles. 

 In the United States specimens both from the Jurassic and the 

 newly explored Cretaceous strata were, however, steadily ac- 

 cumulating ; and during that year Prof. Marsh published 

 restorations of the skeletons of two forms, which for strangeness 

 and uncouthness exceed the wildest flights of the imagination. 



In glancing at some of the more striking features of these dif- 

 ferent Dinosaurian restorations, we may remind our readers that 

 Dinosaurs may be divided into three main groups, of which the 

 first is represented by the Brontosaur(Fig. i), the second by the 

 Megalosaur, of which an authentic restoration has but recently 

 been published, while in the third we have two subgroup.s, one 



NO. 1239, VOL. 48] 



humerus from the Wealden, The fragmentary and disassociate 

 condition of the English specimens rendered it, however, quite 

 impossible to refer with certainty the various teeth, vertebra, 

 and limb-bones to their respective owners until we had the 

 American skeletons as a standard for comparison, and even with 

 that advantage we are not altogether clear on these points. 

 There is, moreover, still some degree of doubt as to the right of 

 some of the American forms to be separated generically from 

 their European allies. 



Till 1892 we had no fully authentic restoration of the skele- 

 ton of any of the larger members of the Carnivorous, or 

 Megalosaurian group ; but this want has been supplied by Prof. 

 Marsh, from whose figures the accompanying illustration (Fig. 2) 

 has been reproduced. It will be seen that, with the exception 

 of the anterior vertebrae of the back, the skeleton is nearly com- 

 plete; and since the missing vertebrae are known from European 

 specimens, there can be no doubt as to their general form. 

 On account of the presence of bony protuberances on the skull 

 of the species figured, as well as from certain other peculiarities, 

 such as the soldering together of the bones of the pelvis and 

 metatarsus. Prof. Marsh regards the American form as generi- 

 cally distinct from the European Megalosaurus, and has accord- 

 ingly suggested for it the name of Ceratosaurus. We are per- 

 suaded, however, that Prof. Cope is right in regarding the two 

 as generically inseparable. 



Passing on to the third or bird-footed (Ornithopodous) group 

 of these reptiles, we come to some of the most specialised forms, 

 none of which attain, however, the stupendous dimensions 

 reached by some of the first group. The more typical repre- 

 sentatives of this third assemblage are characterised, it need 

 i For these bones, see Fig. :j. 



I 



