276 REPORT—1904. 
either at Grimshill or in other Lower Keuper exposures. Dr. Ward says 
‘the footmarks differ from those of Cheirotherium in having only three 
toes armed with long nails directed forwards and not spreading out, and 
one hind toe, pointing backwards, having a long claw. No impression of 
the ball of the foot in this example, but in another there are three toes 
and a depression for the ball not unlike that of a dog.’ Owen in his 
paper compares them with the footprints from Shrewley, described by 
Murchison and Strickland, but says ‘ they differ from them’ (the Shrewley 
prints) ‘in giving more distinct terminations to the terminal claws and 
less distinct impressions of the connecting web. The innermost toe is 
more diminutive, and there is an impression, always at a definite distance 
from the fore toes, of a hind toe pointing backwards, and which seems to 
have only touched the ground with its point.’ The Shrewley prints will 
be dealt with later, but it may be noted that in our Lower Keuper Sand- 
stones in Cheshire and Shropshire no definite trace of webbing on this 
form has been observed (the Shrewley prints, it should be noted, are 
from the Upper Keuper Sandstones). It is also difficult to recognise in 
them the backward pointing digit. A three-toed print is in Mr, Beeby 
Thompson’s collection with a mark in the rear, which it has been thought 
may represent the point of a backward-pointing toe. A somewhat 
smaller but similar print has been found at Runcorn with a mark in the 
same position in the rear, but several similar marks are scattered close to 
the print, and in no case have they quite the appearance of the print of a 
claw. Another print of the same form, but with a short toe projecting 
at right angles to the rest of the foot, comes from Storeton. These seem 
to be varieties of the print described as D 1.! 
D 1. A four-toed print of which frequently the impression of only 
three toes is preserved; these three, presumably II-IV, gradually 
taper from the roots to the ungual termination, the 
breadth about the middle being 5 mm. when the 
length is 35 mm. They gradually decrease in size 
from IV-II. Where I is present it is much shorter 
than the others, but seems to vary in relative size, 
being in some prints more than one-half the length of 
II, at others not a quarter that size ; all the digits 
are terminated by sharp claws; the three digits lie 
more frequently side by side, though sometimes they 
/) diverge, andI usually diverges most. The usual length 
\ of the print is 3 or 4 cm., but occasionally instances 
are met with showing much smallerimpressions. The 
impression of V has been noticed occasionally. The 
proximal ends of the digits are often in actual contact, but they are also 
frequently found with a slight space intervening. There is no trace of the 
‘ball’ mentioned by Dr. Ward, or any portion of the foot beyond the 
digits themselves. The width of the print at the base of the three digits is 
about equal to half the length of the middle or III digit (pl iii.). 
A very noticeable feature in these prints is a frequent lateral curva- 
ture with the concavity towards the inner side, and the claws are bent 
aside in this direction as if unable readily to penetrate the mud in which 
the impressions were made. 
Where the digits lie close side by side the cast of the impressions is 
i er 
! All the figures are natural size, except E, p, 279. 
