152 Mr. II. Seeley on the Literature of English Pterodactyles, 



p, 272) that the hind limbs bespeak a creature unable to stand 

 or walk like a bird. Pterodactyles certainly stood differently 

 from most birds ; for the metatarsals appear to have been placed 

 on the ground, as in the Penguin ; but in the figure of Dimor- 

 phodon"^ the hind limbs will be seen to be quite as long, and 

 nearly as stout, as the fore limbs, while the acetabulum for the 

 femur in the compact pelvis is much larger than the correspond- 

 ing cavity in the scapular arch for the humerus. 



In Prof. Owen's paper on the supposed bird-bones from the 

 Wealden (Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc. p. 100) it is stated that 

 Pterodactyle bones were filled with a light', fluid marrow. And 

 in the 'Paleeontographical Monograph' (1851) is a statement 

 repeated in the '^ Palaeontology ' (p. 272), that the Pterodactyles 

 had leathern wings. I have failed to find any anatomical evi- 

 dence for these statements. 



In Dixon's ' Geology of Sussex' (1850) the Reptiles and Ptero- 

 dactyles were described by Prof. Owen. Fig. 2, pi. 39, appears 

 to me to be the first phalange. Fig. 12, in the same plate, is 

 the distal end of the metacarpal of a wing-finger. 



In the Palseontographical Society's Monograph for 1851, 

 pi. 30, figs. 1, 2, 3 represent a magnificent Ptcrosaurian bone 

 in the collection of Toulmin Smith, Esq. Prof. Owen says, " It 

 is either one of the bones of the fore-arm, or more probably the 

 first or second phalange of the wing-finger." 



The reasoning by which I determine the fossil is this : — It 

 has two unequal, concave articular facets ; these evidently have 

 worked on convex condyles. Between the facets is a large cen- 

 tral concavity, which indicates a corresponding central convexity 

 behind the condyles in the corresponding bone. Therefore, as 

 the distal end of the humerus is the only surface which presents 

 these characters, the fossil is evidently an ulna, 



PI. 30. fig. 5. The supposed ulna and radius need examina- 

 tion. 



PI. 24. fig. 1 is described as lower half of humerus, with 

 ])art of ulna or radius. There is no humerus here : the bones are 

 ulna and radius. 



PI. 24. fig. 2 is a first phalange; pi. 32. fig. 2 is the same. 

 PI. 24. fig. 3 is (?) the proximal end of a wing- metacarpal. PI. 32. 

 fig. 3 is a portion of the proximal end of a wing-metacarpal, and 

 not a femur. PL 32. figs. 6 & 7 is described as the proximal end of 

 a humerus ', but it appears to me to be the distal end of an ulna. 



PI. 32. figs. 4 & 5 is a wing-metacarpal. 



Any remarks in detail on Cambridge specimens will find their 

 place in my monograph of these animals. 



To Prof. Owen's second monograph (1859) I have only to 

 * Trans. Geol. Soc. ser. 2, vol. iii. p. 2T» 



