576 ON REMAINS OF A THERIODONT REPTILE. [Noyv. 19, 
from the humerus of Brithopus in that the postaxial aperture of 
the entepicondylar foramen is situated on the palmar instead of the 
postaxial border of the bone; but this is due to the imperfection of 
the latter border in the type of Brithopus. 
Having now described those of the associated series of bones which 
appear best worthy of notice, it remains to consider whether they can 
be referred to any form hitherto described. In cases like the present 
where, from the want of homologous portions of the skeleton, there 
is no decisive evidence as to whether specimens can be referred to a 
previously described form, by far the easiest and simplest course is 
to make their owner the type of a new genus. As a rule, however, 
this very easy course turns out to be an erroneous one, and it is 
therefore not the one which I propose to follow on this occasion. 
If, as seems to be the case, the humerus represented in plate xix. 
fig. 1, of Owen’s ‘ Catalogue,’ is rightly referred to Cynodraco major 
—the largest of the typical Theriodontia—it is quite clear, from the 
larger size and different contour of the humerus, that the present 
series of specimens cannot be referred to that restricted group, which 
may be conveniently designated as the Galesauride. Moreover, 
although we have no decisive evidence of the nature of the vertebrae 
in the Galesauride, yet there are some reasons for considering that 
these were not of the notochordal type of the present form. Again, 
it is quite clear that these specimens indicate a Theriodont which is 
generically distinct from the large types described under the names 
of Tapinocephalus, Titanosuchus, and Pariasaurus, the vertebree and 
humeri which appear to be referable to the two former genera being 
greatly larger and differing in contour from those of the present 
series. 
Recently, indeed, Professor Seeley’ has described and figured a 
large imperfect tooth from the Karoo system of the Cape preserved 
in the British Museum (No. 49425) under the name of G'laridodon ; 
but there is nothing by which this specimen can be generically 
distinguished from the teeth of Titanosuchus*, so that G'laridodon 
may be a synonym of that genus. 
There is not sufficient evidence to show that the form under con- 
sideration does not belong to the Permian Brithopus, and I there- 
fore refrain from giving it a new name. Additional evidence of its 
affinity to that form is afforded by the vertebre figured in Eichwald’s 
‘ Lethzea Rossica,’ pl. lix. figs. 1, 2, and described as Deuterosaurus. 
These vertebre are smaller than those of our series, but appear to be 
of the same general type, showing similar long transverse pro- 
cesses, a sharp hzemal carina to the centra, and the shortening of 
the latter in the lumbar region. These vertebrze, judging from the 
present series, are too small to have belonged to the same individual 
as the type of Brithopus, but may indicate a smaller example of the 
same genus. So far, indeed, as I can see, there is no reason why 
* Proe. Roy. Soc. vol. xliy. p. 135 (1888). In the absence of any specific 
name the genus is invalid. 
* The tooth described as Glaridodon has been recently cut in order to 
exhibit a section of the root. 
