﻿REPTILE 
  FROM 
  AUSTRALIA. 
  183 
  

  

  together 
  by 
  bone 
  ; 
  consequently 
  the 
  freshwater 
  (Emydian) 
  and 
  

   terrestrial 
  (Testudinarian) 
  groups 
  of 
  Chelonia 
  are 
  out 
  of 
  the 
  pale 
  of 
  

   comparison. 
  In 
  the 
  absence 
  of 
  the 
  alternate 
  broadening 
  and 
  nar- 
  

   rowing 
  of 
  the 
  mesial 
  and 
  lateral 
  ends 
  of 
  the 
  costal 
  plates 
  also 
  

   Notochelys 
  differs 
  from 
  the 
  foregoing 
  groups, 
  and 
  resembles 
  both 
  

   the 
  Chelydes, 
  Trionyces 
  and 
  Chelones. 
  

  

  The 
  impressed 
  indications, 
  however, 
  of 
  the 
  size 
  and 
  shape 
  of 
  the 
  

   vertebral 
  (y 
  1, 
  2, 
  3) 
  and 
  costal 
  (pi 
  1, 
  2, 
  3, 
  4) 
  scutes 
  remove 
  the 
  pre- 
  

   sent 
  Chelonite 
  from 
  the 
  family 
  of 
  soft 
  Turtles 
  (Trionycidce), 
  and 
  

   manifest 
  its 
  affinity 
  to 
  the 
  Chelydians. 
  But 
  a 
  comparison 
  of 
  the 
  

   characters 
  shown 
  in 
  the 
  preserved 
  portion 
  of 
  the 
  bony 
  cuirass 
  

   indicates 
  differences 
  which 
  have 
  generic 
  value. 
  

  

  These 
  modifications, 
  especially 
  of 
  the 
  carapace, 
  show 
  a 
  nearer 
  

   affinity 
  to 
  the 
  marine 
  Turtles 
  (Chelone) 
  than 
  the 
  known 
  Chelydians 
  

   exhibit, 
  and 
  indicate 
  a 
  more 
  generalized 
  type 
  in 
  the 
  Australian 
  

   fossil. 
  This 
  adds 
  to 
  the 
  interest 
  with 
  which 
  we 
  hope 
  to 
  hear 
  of 
  the 
  

   precise 
  geological 
  position 
  of 
  the 
  bed, 
  which, 
  with 
  its 
  included 
  fossil, 
  

   has 
  undergone 
  such 
  complete 
  petrifaction. 
  

  

  I 
  have 
  only 
  to 
  add 
  that 
  the 
  open 
  angle 
  between 
  the 
  scapula 
  and 
  

   its 
  connate 
  and 
  elongate 
  acromial 
  process 
  (fig. 
  2, 
  51) 
  more 
  re- 
  

   sembles 
  that 
  in 
  Chelone 
  caretta 
  than 
  in 
  any 
  existing 
  species 
  of 
  Chelys 
  

   or 
  Trionyx. 
  

  

  The 
  details 
  necessitated 
  for 
  determination 
  of 
  the 
  extinct 
  Chelo- 
  

   nians 
  of 
  our 
  Eocene 
  formations 
  (Hist, 
  of 
  Brit. 
  Foss. 
  Reptiles, 
  vol. 
  i.) 
  

   have 
  led 
  me 
  to 
  note 
  characteristics 
  of 
  my 
  present 
  subject 
  in 
  aid 
  of 
  

   the 
  comparisons 
  which 
  our 
  Australian 
  fellow 
  workers 
  may 
  have 
  to 
  

   institute 
  with 
  respect 
  to 
  subsequently 
  discovered 
  fossil 
  remains 
  of 
  

   Chelonia 
  in 
  their 
  continent. 
  

  

  Discussion. 
  

  

  Prof. 
  Seelet 
  regretted 
  that 
  the 
  specimen 
  upon 
  which 
  the 
  paper 
  

   was 
  founded 
  was 
  not 
  upon 
  the 
  table. 
  It 
  would 
  also 
  have 
  been 
  

   helpful 
  if 
  the 
  author 
  had 
  attempted 
  a 
  restoration. 
  He 
  pointed 
  out 
  

   how 
  much 
  the 
  elements 
  of 
  the 
  plastron 
  must 
  have 
  been 
  displaced. 
  

   He 
  could 
  not 
  help 
  suggesting 
  that 
  the 
  hyo-hyposternal 
  bones 
  were 
  

   not 
  combined, 
  but 
  that 
  those 
  preserved 
  were 
  the 
  hyosternal 
  bones 
  

   only. 
  If 
  this 
  were 
  possible, 
  he 
  doubted 
  the 
  propriety 
  of 
  the 
  name 
  

   Notochelys, 
  as, 
  if 
  the 
  above 
  point 
  were 
  not 
  proved, 
  there 
  was 
  nothing 
  

   to 
  separate 
  the 
  genus 
  from 
  Chelone. 
  Had 
  the 
  peculiar 
  modifica- 
  

   tion 
  of 
  the 
  plastron 
  supposed 
  by 
  the 
  author 
  existed, 
  he 
  should 
  

   have 
  expected 
  more 
  marked 
  differences 
  in 
  the 
  carapace. 
  At 
  the 
  

   same 
  time 
  the 
  value 
  of 
  the 
  contribution 
  could 
  not 
  be 
  doubted. 
  

  

  Q.J.G.S. 
  No. 
  150. 
  

  

  