1858.] HUXiEY-^STAGONOLEPIS. 459 



present I see no reason for believing that the tracks were caused by 

 more than one species of Eeptile. The great apparent differences 

 between some of these foot-marks and others appear to be referable 

 to the varying condition of the sand upon which the tracks were 

 made. 



In the length of the impressions made by the ungual phalanges, 

 and in the large size of the anterior as compared with the posterior 

 foot, the Cummingstone tracks are, so far as I know, unlike those of 

 any known Crocodilian or Chelonian (?) reptile ; but it must be con- 

 fessed that there is a great want of recent materials in attempting to 

 study comparative ichnology. The foot-marks in question are not 

 Cheirotherian, nor do they present any marked similarity to the 

 singular tracks found at Shrewley Common. The resemblance to 

 some of the Ichnites {Ghelichnus, e.g.) of Dumfriesshire, though 

 closer, by no means amounts to identity. But I defer for the present 

 a more extended comparison, which could only be made intelligible 

 by numerous figures. 



As to the question whether these tracks were or were not produced 

 by Stagonolepis, I will only say that I see no reason for asserting 

 that they were not, while there is some ground for beheving that 

 they were so produced. There is reason to believe that Stagonolepis 

 had a short and broad metatarsal and metacarpal region and long 

 ungual phalanges. The foot-prints have broad palmar and plantar im^ 

 pressions and long claw-marks. The shape of the claw-mark answers 

 very well to that of the sole ungual phalanx which has been dis- 

 covered ; but I must remark that the length of that phalanx is some- 

 what too great for any foot-print yet discovered. 



The Crocodilian number of toes, again, combined with the non- 

 Crocodilian proportions of the feet, harmonizes very well with the 

 modified Crocodilism (if I may coin a word) of the organization of 

 Stagonolepis. 



Note. — Unless the contrary is expressly stated, the preceding paper 

 remains in all essential respects the same as when it was sent in to 

 the Society. Since that time, however, several months have elapsed, 

 and, thanks to the exertions of my indefatigable friend Mr. Gordon, 

 much new material has come to light. On the other hand, I have 

 submitted the recent Crocodilia to such a revision as the time at my 

 disposal would allow, and I have published some of my results in an 

 Essay " On the dermal armour of Jacare and Caiman^ with notes on 

 the specific and generic characters of recent Crocodiliay^ published 

 in the * Proceedings of the Linnean Society ' for February 1859. 



The sum of my conclusions from the various kinds of evidence 

 thus obtained is, that the divergence of Stagonolepis from the Cro- 

 codilian type is even less than I had imagined ; and in some cha- 

 racters, such as the form of the posterior maxillary teeth, Stagonolepis 

 is more like a modern Crocodile than a Teleosaurian. 



A very fine specimen of a coracoid, recently sent by Mr. Gordon, 

 convinces me that the differences from the Crocodilian type of struc- 



