332 Correspondence — Profeasor H. G. Seeleij. 



ripplemarks discussed in his classic paper, published in 1859 in the 

 Geologist, was from one to eight inches. Hitherto Dr. Sorby's 

 views could not be reconciled with the results obtained by other 

 workers at much greater depths. We now know that there is no 

 need to attempt to do so, and that Dr. Sorby's observations Avere 

 accurate for the special case studied. He tells us that before he 

 recorded his conclusions he had made 20,000 observations! The pity 

 is that the results were compressed into ten pages of print. 



A. R. Hunt. 



THE KEAAI RIVER VERTEBRA REFERRED TO EUSKELESAURUS. 



Sir,— Dr. A. Smith Woodward (Geol. Mag., June, 1908, p. 251) 

 reprinted a paper on Scap/)oni/x Fisckeri, which in 1907 was said to 

 be a short-necked Dinosaur allied to Emh'It'saunis. In a postscript 

 (p. 255) it is remarked — " From new specimens submitted to me by 

 Dr. I. C.White, I am now of opinion that Scaphonyx is an Anomodont." 

 The publication of this evidence will be interesting, for the figured 

 Brazilian bones, although very imperfect, make approximations to 

 Saurischians, and show little in common with known Anomodonts. 



Dr. A. Smith Woodward figured a cervical vertebra (Fig. 1, I.e., 

 p. 252), and it is on this evidence that Scaphonyx was afiiliated to 

 EtisJiflesaurtts, and compared with the cervical vertebra collected by 

 m5'self and presented to the Natural History Museum. I do not see 

 any close affinity between them. I was not quite certain of my own 

 determination, and (Ann. Mag. T^Tat. Hist., IS'ov. 1894, p. 340) 

 remarked upon the vertebra as " indicating, (/ correctly referred, that 

 Euslcelesauriis was a short-necked type." The determination therefore 

 was questioned by mj^self when it was first made. This appears to 

 have been overlooked, for Dr. A. S. Woodward says in his post- 

 script — "The preceding paper was written in 1904, when Professor 

 Seeley's determination of the cervical vertebra of Eushelesaiirus had 

 not been questioned." The paragraph continues — " Since that time 

 Baron F. von Huene . . 1906 , . has expressed the opinion that the 

 vertebra in. question does not belong to a Dinosaur, but to an 

 Anomodont." I am under the impression that I had mentioned 

 verbally to v. Huene that I had ceased to refer the vertebra to 

 Euskelesaurus, but the reference of it to an Anomodont is entirely his 

 own. The interest of the quotation from the postscript is in 

 Dr. A. Smith Woodward's conclusion that Scaphonyx is an Anomodont; 

 for it would appear that he adopts v. Huene's conclusion concerning 

 the Ivraai River vertebra, from which I dissent. 



In 1905 I deposited in the Natural History Museum for develop- 

 ment, with, a view to eventual presentation after description, a skeleton 

 which I had known for ten years to be referable to the animal type 

 from the Kraai River, which had been doubtfully referred to 

 Euskelesaiiriis. In 1907 these bones were exhibited by me at a con- 

 versazione of the Roj-al Society under Dr. Broom's name, Erythrosuchus 

 Africanus. The animal is not an Anomodont. In superintending the 

 removal of the matrix, I took occasion to draw Dr. Smith Woodward's 



