300 Geological Society. 



refer the right tibia of a small Dinosaur from the Wealden of the 

 Isle of Wight, which had been incorrectly referred to Hgpsilophodon, 

 to the species originally described, from an examination of two 

 vertebrae, as Calamospondylus Foxi, but which he would now 

 name Calamosaurus Foxi. It presents striking avian affinities. 



January 21, 1891.— Dr. A. Geikie, F.R.S., 

 President, in the Chair. 



The following communications were read : — 



1. " On Agrosaurus Macgillivrayi (Seeley), a Saurischian Reptile 

 from the N.E. coast of Australia." By Professor H. G. Seeley, 

 F.R.S., F.G.S. 



The complete left tibia, a less perfect proximal end of the corre- 

 sponding right tibia, a fragment regarded by the Author as a fibula 

 attached to matrix which contains two laterally compressed claw- 

 phalanges, are preserved in the British Museum, and are labelled 

 " Fly," 1844, J. Macgillivray, from the N.E. coast of Australia. 

 These remains are described, and the distinctive characters which 

 determine the fossil (the distal end of the tibia) noted. It shows an 

 ordinal resemblance with Pcel-ilopleuron and Cetiosaurus. but with 

 Dimodosaurus from the top of the Keuper it is so close that the two 

 must be regarded as nearly allied. The fossil is regarded as gene- 

 rically distinct from all known types. The remains indicate an 

 animal about the size of a sheep, and it is considered as not improbable 

 that the creature belongs to the Lower Oolites or Trias. 



2. " On Saurodesmus Iiobertsoni, a Crocodilian Reptile from the 

 Rhaatic of Linksfield, in Elgin." By Professor H. G. Seeley, F.K.S., 

 F.G.S. 



The bone described in this paper was found in a mass which 

 has been interpreted as a large boulder of Rhoetic beds in Boulder- 

 clay. The specimen has already been noticed by Sir Richard 

 Owen and R. Lydekker, Esq. The Author maintains that the 

 bone is a right humerus. He discusses its asserted Chelonian 

 affinities, and concludes that it is not Chelonian but Crocodilian, 

 but that, if grouped with the Crocodilia, it belongs to a suborder 

 hitherto unknown, and defined by a combination of Crocodilian 

 and Lacertilian characters which is not Saurischian. 



