154 REPORTS ON THE STATE OF SCIENCE. 
both cases the foot is very like D 1. The digits are not spread and are 
very unlike D 4, from Upper Keuper of Shrewley, which is distinctly 
webbed. As regards the other forms there is nothing to add to the Report. 
As a whole this group would come very near Saurichnites lacertoides, as 
described by H. B. Geinitz in his ‘Dyas or Permian Formation,’ 
Leipzig, 1861, page 5; but no attempt has been made in this report to 
trace the relation of British footprints to those of the Continent. 
The Chelonoid prints, in some respects resembling the prints de- 
scribed by the pioneers of ichnology as those of tortoises, form the third 
group. ‘They may be described as short, broad prints, with short toes 
and strong claws, and with the palmar surface forming the larger part of 
the area of the print. They have been distinguished by the letter F’. 
I 1 is the simplest form, being merely an oval rounded surface with 
four or five dots representing nailmarks a short distance beyond the margin 
on one side. In F 2 the place of the oval marking is taken by a moulded 
surface giving some indication of the position of the bones of the foot, and - 
there are five short clawed digits. IF 1 may probably be the impression 
of such a foot as F 2 on rather hard mud. F 3 has rather longer digits 
than F 2, and it is uncertain if the manus has more than four that have 
left traces. 
All these prints when seen in series are found to have a very broad 
track. The print of the pes is frequently imposed on that of the manus 
of the same side; at other times the pes and manus are near to each other. 
The prints of this group differ widely from most of the other two 
groups. A distant resemblance led to a careful comparison with some 
of the prints from Corncockle Quarry, Dumfries, in beds at one time 
thought to be in the Trias, but now generally considered Permian. The 
comparison showed that none of our Triassic prints were at all identical 
with those figured in Jardine’s ‘ Ichnology of Annandale.’ 
Within the last few months Mr. Geo. Hickling has published a paper 
on British Permian footprints,’ in which he goes thoroughly into this 
question, and comes to the conclusion that the footprints from the Trias 
are quite unrepresented in the Permian of Dumfries, Penrith, Notting- 
hamshire, or South Devon, as far as at present explored. As pre- 
viously noted, there are several forms which do not readily fall into either 
of the three groups. These have been described as C and O in Report 
1906, I in Report 1904, and P in the present Report, but no further 
knowledge concerning them has been yielded by new material. The 
print O is very interesting, as in some respects like the New England 
prints, and it is hoped that a further examination of the Hollington 
quarries may result in obtaining further examples. 
It is noteworthy that no prints have been recorded that might seem 
to be intermediate between the three groups, but it is sfill possible that such 
may yet be found when the innumerable small prints covering slabs in 
various collections have been more thoroughly examined. 
The question of the possibility of various forms resulting from the 
same foot being impressed on mud of differing consistency has been fre- 
quently referred to, and it is hoped that observations and experiments 
now in progress may lead to good results. 
1 «British Permian Footprints,’ Memoirs Manchester Lit. Phil,' Soc., vol. liii. 
part 3 (June 18, 1909). 
