0. W. Jeffs — Saurian Footprinh in Trias. 453 



where the claw has penetrated the sand ; four distinct toes, 

 probably had a rudimentary fifth. The digits do not display the 

 same parallelism as in the specimens attributed to Ehynchosaurus. 



7. (c) Genus indet. — A minute fox-m, |- an inch long, showing 

 four digits, tapering to a point ; no vestige of claws. 



8. (d) Genus indet. — Three rather broad digits, with claws 

 (? webbed). Not well defined; may be same as (b). 



9. (e) Genus indet. — An oval impression, with concave termin- 

 ated digits, four or five in number, and a hinder projecting spur 

 (? Chelonian). Toes webbed. 



10. Two slabs from Oxton Heath (found by Dr. Eicketts) covered 

 with impressions of (a) Bhyncliosaurus, and probably of those 

 included under (&). 



11. A large slab found in situ from the South quarry, Storeton, 

 at Easter, 1894, by Mr. Norman Jeffs. Shows specimens of several 

 varieties — the slender-toed Itliyncliosaurus ; the minute form (c), 

 several tracks ; the stubby form (6) ; and both the fore and hind 

 foot of a similar species to No. 134, resembling the Cheirotherinm, 

 but of smaller size, and differentiated from that species by having 

 the digits all pointing in the same direction. 



Note on Cheirotherium. 



The larger footprints known as belonging to the Cheirotherium 

 have long been attributed, on the authority of Sir E. Owen, to 

 one or other genera of Labyrinthodonts. 



In a paper contributed to the Transactions of the Liverpool 

 Geological Association, in 1889, by Mr. James Hornell, the author 

 records an interesting series of investigations on Labyrinthodonts, 

 chiefly from a biological point of view, and though he apparently 

 accepts Owen's correlation — since he terms it " successful " (p. 67) — 

 he shows very clearly that the Cheirotherium impressions do not 

 coincide with the normal type of Labyrinthodon. For the " hand- 

 footed kind, where the hind limbs by reason of their greatly increased 

 size depart from the central type," Mr. Hornell proposes a separate 

 classification in a sub-order. But it may be pertinently asked 

 whether there exists any evidence from the skeletons of Labyrintho- 

 donts, now so numerously discovered in the Coal-measures, Permian 

 and Triassic strata, of this special type of Labyrinthodon ? 



Since Owen correlated the Labyrinthodon with the Batrachia, a 

 great mass of evidence has come to light, through the researches of 

 Burmeister and Fritsch in Germany ; Professors Huxley, Seeley, 

 and Miall in England ; and Professors Cope and Marsh in America. 

 It is now accepted that the Labyrinthodon was more akin to the 

 Salamander or Newt than to the Frog. Indeed, the skeletons which 

 have been obtained entire from the petroleum shales of Germany 

 show none of the supposed frog-like affinities. The Labyrinthodon 

 was, in fact, a primeval Salamander, the species varying in size 

 from small creatures, 8 inches in length, to huge animals of eight or 

 nine feet. 



It is but fair to state that Owen recognised the footprints of 



