648 MR. R. BROOM ON ANOMODONT REPTILES 



as a distinct genus. In 1909, in summing up the position at 

 that time, I stated that the evidence seemed " to be getting 

 stronger in favour of Oudenodon being but the female Dicynodon:' 

 By 1911 the discovery of tusked and tuskless specimens of 

 Dicynodon holorhinus in one locality removed all doubt, and 

 since then we have discovered tusked and tuskless specimens of 

 quite a number of species. We do not yet know whether the 

 females of all species are tuskless, and there is considerable reason 

 to believe they are not. And it is also possible that even the 

 males of some species at present referred to Dicynodon may be 

 tuskless. The genus Lystrosaurus is certainly tusked in both 

 sexes, and as all known specimens of Cistecephcdus are without 

 tusks, presumably both sexes are tuskless. All the known 

 specimens — about a dozen — of Kannemeyeria are tusked. Also 

 every known specimen of Dicynodjon tigriceps or allied species is 

 tusked, while the few known specimens referred to Eocyclofs are 

 tuskless. tSpecies where both sexes are tusked or both tuskless 

 will have to be placed in distinct genera or at least subgenera. 



When Owen worked at Dicynodon and Oudevodon he made 

 nearly every skull the type of a distinct species, and there were 

 doubtless many who considered that he was over liberal in the 

 making of new species. Lydekker in 1890 reduced Owen's 

 20 species to 11 good and 3 doubtful species, but there is now 

 little doubt, with our much greater knowledge of the genus, that 

 practically all Owen's types are good. In my opinion, out of the 

 20 specific names only two can be regarded as synonymous — 

 D. pardiceps and D. rectidens, both of Avhich I refer to D. 

 leonice2)s Ow. 



It is hardly surprising that a genus which survived for 

 probably over 2,000,000 years should have over 50 species 

 already known, and probably very many more to be discovered, 

 Avhen we consider how many species of such reptiles as Testudo 

 or Lygosoma are at present alive. Until a few years ago nearly 

 every good specimen discovered seemed to belong to a new 

 species. Now the corner seems to be turned, and the majority 

 of Dicynodon skulls now picked up can be referred to sjDecies 

 already known. 



In the present paper I wish to describe a nvmiber of new forms 

 I have discovered in the past three years. 



Dicynodon sollasi, sp. n. (Text-figs. 28, 29.) 



This new species I have much pleasure in naming after 

 Prof. W. J. Sollas, who with his daughter has added so consider- 

 ably to our fuller knowledge of the structure of the Dicynodon 

 skull*. It is founded on a series of over 20 good skulls and 



* In coiiiiectioii with the work on Dicynodon by Prof, and Miss Sollas, I should 

 like to point out that the skull examined by them in 1913 cannot possiblj' be 

 Dicynodon leo7iiceps Owen. As the specimen is now, of course, completelj' gone, 

 and as the postoi'bitals have manifestly been partly weathered awa}- before the 

 specimen was ground down, it will never he possible to determine the species with 

 absolute certail'lt3^ In my opinion the specimen was Dicynodon feliceps Owen. 



