2 ME. G. A. BOULENGEE ON A NOTHOSAUEIAN EBPTILE 



Crivelli (7) as Pakeosaurus. But in 1863 Curioni explains (12, p. 266 i) that Macro- 

 merosaurus (originally misspelt Macromirosaurus) was the name intended for another 

 Saurian, from Perledo and Viggiu, with longer humerus, to which he merely alludes in 

 his first paper, and which is, in fact, the Pachypleura edward&ii of Cornalia (9). If 

 we could accept this interpretation, the name Macromerosaurus might be used in 

 preference to that of Pachypleura, which is preoccupied in zoology, as pointed out by 

 Lydekker (21); but I do not find any justification for such a transposition, and, 

 following tradition, consider Macromerosaurus as a synonym of Lariosaurus, the former 

 name applying to the young, the latter to the adult. 



The Keptile lies on its back, the neck and tail twisted to the right, the hind limbs 

 spread out nearly at right angles to the body. The head is intact, with the palate and 

 mandible completely exposed. The 15 anterior cervical vertebrae are in natural juxta- 

 position, whilst the remainder are dislocated. The pectoral arch is likewise dislocated, 

 and does not show all the elements. The fore limb is represented by the right 

 humerus, and the perfect left propodials and manus. The dorsal vertebrae are 

 partly imbedded in the matrix, partly hidden under the plastron, most of the bones of 

 which are very well preserved. The pelvis is crushed, but the tail is complete and 

 exposed to its very tip. The Plate (Trans. Zool. Soc. XIV. PI. I.) represents the fossil 

 natural size ; the matrix is represented lighter than it really is, in order to render the 

 outlines of the bones more distinct. 



The specimen is now in a very different condition from what it was when sent to 

 me. The manus was a complete fraud, imaginary phalanges having been sculptured 

 out of the matrix in order, evidently, to give the Keptile a more Plesiosaurian appear- 

 ance ; and, deceived at first, I considered the fossil as representing a new type. I must 

 add that in all probability the specimens figured by Curioni were developed by the 

 same "artist"; and that, consequently, some of the conclusions which have been 

 derived from an examination of those specimens, especially as regards the digital 

 formula, the shape of the " claws " or " hoofs," and the aspect of the palate are, to say 

 the least, very doubtful. The specimen figured by Zittel (20) as Lariosaurus ialsami, 

 and of which a cast is preserved in the British Museum, is imperfect as regards the 

 digits, and the exact number of phalanges is difficult to make out. This explains the 

 contradiction between text and figure in Zittel's Manual, the number of phalanges in 



' This passage of his second paper is here reproduced : — " Da una nota che il Cornalia aggiunse alia sua 

 Memoria pare che egli ritenga che i rettili di Besano e queUi di Perledo, uno dei quali venne da me descritto 

 e figurato col nome di Lariosaurus baham'i. Cur. (vedi Memoria citata, Milano, 1847), spettino ad una sola 

 specie di saurii, e debbano riferirsi tutti al suo Paclujpleura. Nel 1847 io pcnsava che due fossero le specie di 

 Perledo ; una U Lariosauro, affato speciale a Perledo, e un' altra di cui trovavansi esemplari anche a Viggiu, 

 meglio conservati di quelli di Perledo, che io credeva non dover riferire alia medesima specie. Applicai a questa 

 seconda specie U nome di Macromeromuro, giudicando che il carattere piu sagliente di questa specie fosse la 

 lunghezza degli omeri rettiUnei, eccedente di una terza parte quella dei femori : il che non e nel Lariosauro 

 (vedi fig. 2, tav. vii.)." The figure refers to the Eeptile with straight and longer humerus, the Pachypleura 

 of Cornalia. 



