April 6, 1882] 
NATURE 
533 
(2) The “lateral carpal’’ unites both with the distal 
carpal and with the “pteroid” by very free, well-defined 
articulations. 
(3) In American specimens, the “ lateral carpal” stands 
nearly at right angles to the wrist, and the “ pteroid”’ is 
much bent near its articular end. 
(4) In no Pterodactyle known is there any remnant of 
a digit outside the wing finger, where the membrane might 
be expected to retain it. 
(5) This view would make the wing finger of the fifth 
digit, the same to which the membrane is attached in the 
hind foot. 
Perhaps the strongest objection against this interpreta- 
tion is the number of phalanges in the respective digits of 
the hand. ‘These, however are not constant in the known 
Pterodactyles, and they vary much in other reptiles which 
have the digits highly specialised. This subject will be 
more fully discussed by the writer elsewhere. 
According to the above interpretation, there are five 
digits in the hand of Pterodactyles, although not the five 
often given in restorations. The first digit, the elements 
of which have been considered, undoubtedly supported a 
membrane in front of the arm. The second, third, and 
fourth are small, and armed with claws. The large wing 
finger is the fifth, corresponding to the little finger of the 
human hand. 
The metacarpal bones are much elongated in the Ptero- 
dactyles with short tails, and quite short in those, like-the 
present specimen, that have the tail long. The metacar- 
pal of the wing finger is always large and robust, while 
those of the claw bearing digits are usually quite slender. 
In Preranodon, the second metacarpal is a slender thread 
of bone throughout most of the length, while the third 
and fourth are attenuated splint bones, incomplete above. 
The phalanges of the three middle digits are quite short, 
and the terminal ones supported sharp claws. The wing 
finger has four greatly elongated phalanges, the last 
being a styloid bone without a claw. This digit is well 
shown in the right wing represented in Fig. 1, and also in 
the restoration, given below in Fig. 3. 
In the restoration here attempted, the writer has en- 
deavoured to reproduce (1) the parts actually present or 
clearly indicated in the specimen described, and (2) those 
which the former seemed to require to complete the out- 
ward form in life. The membrane at the base of the tail 
may have been somewhat less in extent, and the fold of 
the skin above the fore-arm either more or less developed 
than here represented, but the facts now known render 
the outlines here given more than probable. The hands 
are represented with the palms forward. 
The present species appears to be most nearly related to 
Rhamphorhynchus Gemming?t, von Meyer, from the same 
geological horizon, and near the same locality. That it 
is quite distinct, however, is shown, aside from the diffe- 
rence in size, by the complete ankylosis of the scapula and 
coracoid, and by the fifth digit of the hind foot being well 
developed, and having three phalanges. In the name 
Rhamphorhynchus phyllurus, here proposed for the species, 
the latter designation refers to the leaf-shaped caudal ap- 
pendage, which appears to be one ofits most characteristic 
features. 
For the long delay in the description of this important 
European specimen, the writer can only plead 2embarras 
des richesses nearer home. O. C. MARSH 
Yale College, New Haven, March 14 
THE INSTITUTION OF NAVAL ARCHITECTS 
“7T*HE annual meetings of the Institution were held this 
year on the 29th, 30th, and 31st of March. The 
programme included no less than nineteen papers, not 
one of which could in any sense be called a stop-gap. It 
seems a'pity that this Institution should hold but one 
meeting in the year. The time available for reading 
papers on the three days amounts in all to but twenty 
hours, which leaves about one hour for the reading and 
discussion of each paper. It is no exaggeration to say 
that many of the subjects considered at the recent meet- 
ings required a whole day for their adequate discussion, 
and would have received this allowance of time at any 
other institution. The true interests of the naval archi- 
tects are sure to suffer in the long run, if the present policy 
of cramming so many papers into the short space of time 
available at the meeting is adhered to. The first paper 
read, and the only one which dealt directly with ships of 
war, was by Mr. Samuda. -It was an attempt to controvert 
the arguments made use of by Sir Wm. Armstrong in his 
recent address to the Institution of Civil Engineers. The 
address in question has been generally construed into a 
defence of unarmoured as against iron-clad ships. Sir 
William Armstrong states that for the cost of one iron- 
clad we could have three unarmoured ships, each carrying 
the armament of the iron-clad, and that in a match 
between the iron-clad and her three supposed antagonists 
they would probably get the better of it. Mr. Samuda, 
however, points out, that in fleet fighting, which he sup- 
poses will in the future, as in the past, be the principal 
form of naval combat, this advantage of the many 
unarmoured ships against the few iron-clads would 
disappear. 
Mr. Samuda further argues that the recent improve- 
ments in the construction of the hulls and armour of war 
ships, due to the introduction of mild steel instead of iron, 
has at least neutralised the extraordinary improvements 
made in the guns in the last few years. He also warned 
his hearers against the disastrous consequences which 
may be brought about through false economy in naval 
construction. 
The opinion of the meeting as evoked in the dis- 
cussion was certainly in favour of Mr. Samuda’s argu- 
ments. Several distinguished naval officers, including 
Admirals Hornby and-De Horsey, and Captain Noel, 
spoke emphatically of unarmoured war ships as being 
utterly useless for fighting purposes if opposed by iron- 
clads. They dwelt on the great value of even a moderate 
amount of armour, in keeping out projectiles which struck 
obliquely, and in actual combat but few shots would be 
likely to strike at right angles. Mr. Burnaby also lent 
the weight of his great authority to the same view of the 
question. Upon the whole Mr, Samuda may claim 
to have considerably modified the effect which was 
pretty generally produced by Sir William Armstrong's 
address. 
Mr. Dunn, Assistant-Constructor at the Admiralty, 
read an interesting paper on Modern Merchant Ships. 
This communication dealt incidentally with the capacity 
of merchant ships for being converted into cruisers for 
the protection of other merchant vessels in time of war. 
This is an important subject, when we remember how 
miserably inadequate the royal navy is for this purpose. 
The actual money value of the merchant navy of this 
country falls little, if at all short, of two hundred millions 
sterling. If to this sum, we add the value of the freight 
carried, it will be easy to understand how vulnerable as a 
nation we are at sea. Mr. Dunn has for some time past been 
employed by the Admiralty in surveying those vessels, 
which are intended, should the occasion ever arise, to 
supplement the regular navy in defending the mercantile 
marine. The important qualities which a merchant 
steamer must possess in order to be capable of being 
converted into a man-of-war are speed, structural 
strength, considerable relative beam, and powerful steer- 
ing gear. In all these points it is satisfactory to learn 
that much progress has been made during the last few 
years. ‘Taking first the question of speed. Between the 
years 1875 and 1882, the number of steamers capable of 
steaming 13 knots and upwards continuously at sea has 
