266 M. A. Wagner on a new Fossil Reptile: 
the structure of different organs. Consequently, until I shall be 
‘convinced by the discovery, in another specimen, of the parts: 
wanting in the one now under consideration, I do not hesitate 
to regard this as a reptile of the order Sauria; and I give it the 
name of Griphosaurus, derived from ypidos, an enigma. 
. This singularly constructed Saurian might also assist us in 
the solution of another mystery which has not yet been unveiled. 
It is well known that in certain strata of the Trias we meet with 
impressions which have been regarded as the footprints of birds, 
although no bones of birds have yet been discovered in any of 
the Secondary rocks older than the Chalk. As far as these im- 
pressions (the signification of which has hitherto always appeared 
to me very doubtful*) may be actual footprints of animals, we 
should at least become acquainted in the Griphosaurus with 
a reptile with birds’ feet, or, more properly, a reptile with 
the tarsus of a bird, the footprints of which must therefore have 
been like those of a bird. By this I do not mean to say that 
these supposed footprints of birds are due to our new genus, 
but I only wish to furnish an effective support for the supposi- 
tion that these footprints are produced not by birds, but by 
reptiles of an extinct type. In this way also the sequence in 
the appearance of the Vertebrata, as ascertained from the re- 
mains of their skeletons discovered in the rock-beds, would be 
brought into accordance with the observations of the footprints, 
in so far as these are truly what they are said to be. The sup- 
posed birds’ footprints of the Trias would thus by no means be 
produced by birds, but by reptiles; they would be reptile- 
tracks. 
In conclusion, I must add a few words to ward off Darwinian 
misinterpretations of our new Saurian. At the first glance of 
the Griphosaurus we might certainly form a notion that we had 
before us an intermediate creature, engaged in the transition 
from the Saurian to the bird. Darwin and his adherents will 
probably employ the new discovery as an exceedingly welcome 
occurrence for the justification of their strange views upon the 
transformations of animals. But in this they will be wrong. 
If I say of the Frog that it was originally a fish, I can at least 
justify such an assertion; because I can positively show by spe- 
cimens the transition of the fish into an Amphibian, from the 
first states of a fish-like tadpole through a whole series of inter- 
mediate steps. I cannot indeed require that, in regard to Gri- 
phosaurus, Darwin should show me such intermediate steps, for 
of this genus we only know a single and imperfect specimen ; 
but I am entitled to ask of the Darwinians, if they should desire 
to cite the Griphosaurus as an intermediate creature undergoing 
* See my ‘Geschichte der Urwelt,’ ii. p, 423. 
