THK CARBONIFEKOUfJ. 61 



tionotl, found in 1859. Ilijlonomns Lyelli had a far more ornate set 

 of cutaneous appendages, as evidenced by remains of skin found 

 associated witli its bones, also in 1859.* 'J'lie tree of 1876 contains 

 uo cuticular remains referable to this species. 



4. Remain.^, 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 tlirow 

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

 ])robably 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 batraehians 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 Batraehians of the Coal 

 formation of Ohio,-j- he places Hylonomus in the same family, 2\idi- 

 tanidce, with Dendrerpeton, This I think does not express its true 

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

 tlie differently formed vertebra', the teeth with non-plicated dentine, 

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

 appendages, all separate these animals from the labyrintliodonts, and 

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

 order or sub-order, for which I proposed in 1863 the name Micro- 

 saiin'n. I observe that in the Keport on the Labyrinthodonts, pre- 

 pared by Mr j\Iiall for the British Association in 1873, and in the 

 Tabular View appended to it in 1874, while the group Mia-osimria 

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

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

 genus is concerned. 1 may add my continued conviction that 

 Hylonomus and its allies present many points of approacii to the 

 lacertian reptiles, wdiich I hope in future to be able to w^ork out 

 more in detail. 



Several masses of coprolite, filled Avith small broken bones, Avere 

 obtained in breaking up the inateriid 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 



* Jdurnal Oeol. Soc, vol. xvi., also " Air-bicathi:is,"' 1863. 

 t Palaeontology of Ohio, vol. ii. 



