REPTILIA : SEYMOURIA 59 



seems to me utterly improbable that the coracoid as ossified in 

 the Seymouria and V aranosaurus is not identical with the bone 

 supposed to be (without proof) the fused coracoid and procora- 

 coid of the Lacertilia, Dinosauria, etc. I at first adopted the terms 

 of Howes and Lydekker, calling the anterior bone in these animals 

 the real coracoid and the posterior one, the metacoracoid, but, in 

 deference to the arguments brought forward by Broom, I will beg 

 the question, until its final decision, by simply calling the two bones 

 the "anterior*" and the "posterior" coracoids. The only thing 

 that I wish to insist upon is that the coracoid of Seymouria and 

 Varanosaurus is absolutely identical with the coracoid of the 

 Lacertilia, Dinosauria, Crocodilia, etc. 



The humerus (Plate XXIX) is a remarkably short and stout 

 bone with a large ectepicondylar process, characteristic of this 

 genus, the Diadectidae, Limnoscelidae and Eryopidae, but not 

 found in the Pariotichidae, and most of the temnospondyles. The 

 median or ulnar process is also large, and the entepicondylar 

 foramen is of unusual size; the entocondyle is greatly expanded. 

 The radius, as preserved in this specimen, is a more slender bone 

 than the one figured by me in Desmospondylus, possibly indicative 

 of specific differences. Its shaft is only moderately stout, the 

 proximal end subcylindrical and truncated, and but moderately 

 expanded at the distal end, less than is shown in the figure. The 

 olecranon is well developed. There are several carpal bones lying 

 in association with their respective arm bones, though but little 

 can be said regarding their identities and associations; they are 

 all small. The hand bones of the right side are more or less inter- 

 mingled with the bones of the right foot, and some of them cannot 

 be differentiated. On the left side, however, four metacarpals 

 are yet lying in orderly relations, and it is from the two sides that 

 I have restored the hand as shown in the figure. Among the pha- 

 langes are one or two of small size, demonstrating the slenderness 

 of the fingers, and their consequent differentiation from those of 

 Limnoscelis and Diadectes. The number of phalanges, as given in 

 the figure, both of the front and the hind feet, is assumed, but 

 there can be little doubt but that the formula was the primitive 

 one, as in Limnoscelis. 



