210 G. F. Matthew—Second Note on Stenotheca. 
the posterior end is deeply cupped. This genus, moreover, differs 
from all known Dinosaurs in having the elements of the pelvis - 
(ilium, pubis, and ischium) codssified, as in all existing birds. The 
_ metatarsals, also, are firmly united, as in birds. No representatives 
of the Ceratosauride are known in Hurope. 
In conclusion, it may safely be said that the four great groups of 
Dinosauria are each well represented both in Europe and America. 
Some of the families, also, of each order have representatives in the 
two regions, and future discoveries will doubtless prove that others 
occur in both. 
No genera common to the two continents are known with 
certainty, although a few are so closely allied, that they cannot be 
distinguished from each other by the fragmentary specimens that 
now represent.them. It must be remembered that the great majority 
of genera have been named from portions of skeletons, of which 
the skull was unknown, and until the latter is found, and definitely 
associated with the remains described, the characters and affinities 
of the genus can be only a matter of conjecture, more or less definite, 
in proportion to the perfection of the type specimens. 
From Asia and Africa, also, a few remains of Dinosaurs have 
been described, and the latter continent promises to yield many 
interesting forms. Characteristic specimens, representing two genera, 
one apparently belonging to the Stegosauria, and one to the Thero- 
poda, are already known from South Africa, from the region so 
rich in other extinct Reptilia. 
From Australia, no Dinosauria have as yet been recorded, but 
they will undoubtedly be found there, as this great group of Reptiles 
were the dominant land animals of the earth, during all Mesozoic 
time. 
V.—Srconp Notre on STENOTHECA. 
By G. F. Marruew, M.A., F.R.S., Canada. 
OME three years ago the writer communicated to this MaGazinr 
a “ Note on the Genus Stenotheca”’ of Hicks,‘ stating that from 
the appearance of the species, which on this (western) side of the. 
Atlantic had been referred to it, it did not seem to belong to the 
Pteropoda, but more probably to the Gasteropoda. I also stated that 
there were two distinct types of shells which had been referred to 
Stenotheca, one of which by its internal muscular scar and position 
of the umbo might be compared to Parmophorus, etc.; while the 
other, represented by a number of minute species, appeared to 
correspond to the original Stenotheca of Dr. Hicks. 
Collections of these smaller fossils, made subsequently to 1885, 
led the writer to think that they were the shells of Crustaceans, and 
he applied to Dr. Hicks for an authentic example of his Stenotheca ; 
this Dr. Hicks kindly sent, and the example proved to be congeneric 
with the smaller shells of the St. John Group which had been 
referred to Stenotheca, and which had been found to be those of 
Crustaceans. 
1 See Grou. Mac. Decade III. Vol. II. 1885, p. 425. 
