Yol. 55.] FROM EH^TIC BEDS NEAE BEIDGEKD. 93 



and he has in the same place expressed the opinion that the 

 Warwickshire tooth described by Huxley may belong to Zandodon 

 suevicus of Yon Meyer. Another bat smaller tooth in the British 

 Museum (Nat. Hist.), referred doubtfully by Mr. Lydekker to 

 Zandodon, is from the Lias of Lyme Regis. 



Owen^ gave the name of Cladyodon Lloydii to a similarly 

 compressed, but apparently much more slender tooth, from the 

 Keuper of Coton End, Warwick. 



A few Dinosaurian bones have been recorded from beds of Hhsetic 

 age. So long ago as the year 1849 Stutchbury ^ called attention to 

 a big bone from the Ehsetic Bone-bed of Aust Cliff, which measured 

 2 feet in length, although wanting both extremities ; but, with this 

 exception, anything like Dinosaurian remains was unknown from 

 beds of this age until the year 189-4, when Mr. W. A. Sanford ^ made 

 known the discovery of some large bones and teeth, of an animal 

 resembling Megalosaurus, in Rhsetic beds at Wedmore, near 

 Glastonbury. 



These remains have since been described more in detail by 

 Prof. Seeley,* who has proposed two new genera and two new 

 species for their reception, namely, Avalonia Sanfordi and Plcrodon 

 Herveyi. The specimens included in the first of these genera are a 

 much-worn tooth of Megalosaurian or Zandodon type, a femur, a 

 dorsal vertebra, and two phalanges. The tooth has the posterior 

 edge sharp and serrated ; the anterior side is rounded and, in its 

 present condition, devoid of serrations ; but the tooth is very much 

 worn, and it is probable that when perfect the anterior margin was 

 serrated near the apex. ^Notwithstanding the restricted serration 

 of this tooth, its affinity is rather with Zandodon t]ia,n with Megalo- 

 saurus. The peculiarities of the femur and vertebra which, with 

 those of the tooth, are relied upon for their generic separation from 

 Zandodon are seemingly but small, and one cannot feel convinced 

 that the genus Avalonia rests upon a sure foundation. 



With regard to the tooth and bones named Picrodon, there is a 

 greater difficulty, for it seems probable that they are parts of the 

 same skeleton as the remains named Avalonia. All the bones 

 were found together at the same place ; and, besides this, the chief 

 character said to be distinctive of the tooth — namely, the obliquity 

 of its serrations — is so slight as to be scarcely perceptible. 



In comparing the Bridgend Dinosaur with the nearly-related 

 forms above noticed, we are practically limited to the form of the 

 teeth, for, with the exception of Megalosaurus, the jaw of which 

 has already been mentioned, and the little Ornitliosudius from 

 Elgin, no lower jaws are available for comparison. This is 

 unfortunate, for the distinctive characters of these Dinosaurian 

 genera are to be sought in the vertebrae, pelvis, and limbs. The 



1 Rep. Brit. Assoc. 1841 (Plymouth) p. 155, and ' Odontography' (1840-4.5) 

 p. 268, pi. lxii% fig. 4. 



2 Eep. Brit. Assoc. 1849 (Birmingham) p. 67. 



3 Proc. Somerset. Arch. Nat. Hist. Soc. vol. xl (1894) p. 227. 

 * Geol. Mag. 1898, p. 1. 



