Zoological Society. 383 



In a subsequent communication, dated December 18-15, Mr. Bower- 

 bank states with regard to the specimens Nos. 5 and G, which he 

 supposed to be parts of a tibia, that "on a more careful comparison 

 with the figures of Pterodactijlus by Goldfuss, I am inclined to be- 

 lieve they are more likely to be portions of the ulna." 



With respect to the long bone. No. G in the above list, comparing 

 it with that figured in the Geol. Trans., 2nd Series, vol. vi. pi. 39. 

 tig. 1, and referred by me to Cimoliornis diomedeus, Mr. Bowerbank 

 writes : — 



"Although the two specimens differ greatly in size, there is so 

 strong a resemblance between them in the form and regularity of the 

 shaft, and in the comparative substance of the bony structure, as to 

 render it exceedingly probable that they belong to the same class of 

 animals ;" and he concludes by remarking, that " If the part of the 

 luad in my possession (see fig. 1) be supposed similar in its propor- 

 tions to that oi Pterodactylus crassirostris, — and there appears but 

 little difference in that respect, — it would indicate an animal of com- 

 paratively enormous size. The length of the head, from the tip of 

 tlie nose to the basal extremity of the skull, of Pf. crassirostris is 

 about 4f inches, while my specimen would be, as nearly as can be 

 estimated, 9\ inches. According to the restoration of the animal by 

 Goldfuss, Pt. crassirostris would measure as nearly as possible three 

 feet from tip to tip of the wings, and it is probable that the species 

 now described would measure at least six feet from one extremity of 

 the expanded wings to the other ; but if it should hereafter prove 

 that the bone described and figured by Prof. Owen belongs to a Pte- 

 rodactyle, the probable expansion of the wings would reach to at least 

 eight or nine feet. Under these circumstances I propose that the spe- 

 cies described above shall be designated Pterodactylus giganteus" 

 (Quarterly Geol. Journ. vol. ii. p. 8.) 



* In a subsequent memoir, read June 9, 1847, and published in the 

 * Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society,' vol. iv. February 1848, 

 Mr. Bowerbank gives figures of the ' bone-cells ' from the jaw of a 

 Pterodactyle (pi. 1. fig. 1), from the shaft of the bone in question 

 {ib. fig. 2), and from the femur of a recent Albatros {ib. fig. 3), in 

 corroboration of the required proof: and he adds, "Fortunately the 

 two fine specimens from the rich collection of Mrs. Smith of Ton- 

 bridge Wells, represented by fig. 1. pi. 2, in a great measure justify 

 this conclusion ; and in the bone a, which is apparently the corre- 

 sponding bone to the one represented by fig. 1 in Prof. Owen's paper, 

 the head is very nearly in a perfect state of preservation," {pp. cit. 

 p. 5.) Mr. Bowerbank, in his explanation of plate 2, describes the 

 two fine specimens above mentioned as " Fig. 1 . Radius and ulna of 

 Pterodactylus giganteus, in the cabinet of Mrs. Smith of Tonbridge 

 Wells." {torn. cit. p. 10.) He proceeds to state, "There are two 

 other similar bones, imbedded side by side, in the collection of Mr. 

 Charles of Maidstone, of still greater dimensions than those from the 

 cabinet of Mrs. Sinith ;" and he assigns his grounds for the conclu- 

 sion, that " the animal to which such bones belonged could, therefore, 

 have scarcely measured less than fifteen or sixteen feet from tip to tip 

 of its expanded wings." 



