598 DR. R. BROOM ON A SOUTH AFRICAN [May 29, 



Figs. 23 and 24 show two views of the tarsus as preserved. There 

 ai-e seen to be three lai^ge bones in tlie pi'oximal part of the tarsus, 

 and the tibia seems to be in connection with the inner and the 

 fibula with the middle one. These three bones we may fairly 

 confidently regard as tibiale, intermedium, and fibulare. On the 

 outer side of the foot is a large curved bone which is manifestly 

 the 5th metatarsal. This is supported by a large tarsale which 

 we may regard as the 4th. The other tarsal elements are small. 

 If these determinations are correct, then it would appear that the 

 foot has been folded on the leg and the sides crushed together. 

 Making allowance foi- the crushing the foot may be i*estoi'ed as in 

 fig. 25. 



The tibiale is an irregularly oval -shaped bone and is the smallest 

 of the elements of the pi'oximal row. The intermedium is a large 

 rectangular bone. On its under or posterior surface there is a 

 large groove. The fibulare forms a well-marked heel pi-ocess. 

 There is no centrale displayed, but it is probable that one existed 

 though it may have been cartilaginous. Of the distal tarsal bones 

 the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd are of small size, each supporting a single 

 metatarsal. The 4th tarsale is about as large as the tibiale and 

 supports both the 4th and 5th metatarsals. The 1st metatarsal is 

 rather short and stout. The 2nd, 3rd, and 4th are all imperfect at 

 their distal ends, but the 2nd is considerably longer than the 1st, 

 and the 3rd and 4th much longer than the 2nd. It is not certain 

 whether the 3rd or 4th is the longer, but the little evidence 

 available points to the 4th being the longest of the metatarsals. 



Affinities o/Howesia, 



The only animals with which it seems necessary to compare 

 Howesia are Sj^henodon, the Gnathodonts Hyperodapedon, Sieno- 

 metopon, and Rhynchosatirus, the Phytosaurs, and the Protero- 

 saurians such as Palceohatteria. The jugal, postorbital, and post 

 frontal bones bear considerable resemblance to the corresponding 

 bones in Sphenodon^ but almost quite as much to those of the much 

 more primitive Diaptosaurians, the Pelycosaurs, and of Pcdceo- 

 hatteria. There is also considerable resemblance to the facial bones 

 of Rhynchosauriis . In the other Gnathodonts the resemblances 

 are obscured by the specialisations. The frontals and parietals 

 are more like those of Rhynchosaihrus and even of Stenometopon 

 than of Sph&nodon, and the resemblance is increased by the fact 

 of the parietal foramen being practically absent in Howesia. The 

 maxillary and dentary dentition is unlike that of any other reptile 

 hitherto known except Hyperodapedon; and though this latter 

 genus is extremely specialised, the mode of implantation of the 

 teeth in the bone is so essentially similar to that in Howesia, as to 

 suggest a relationship between the genera. The palate is more 

 primitive than in either Sphenodon ov Hyperodapedon, and resembles 

 more that of the Pelycosaurs. It also bears some resemblance to 

 the palate of the Rhynchocephaloid reptile, Proterosuchus. 



The shoulder-gii'dle differs from the earlier types in having no 

 precox acoid. In many respects the girdle resembles that of 



