﻿246 
  on 
  eemains 
  op 
  chelonia 
  and 
  a 
  tooth 
  of 
  (?) 
  oen1thopsis. 
  

  

  Discussion. 
  

  

  Prof. 
  Seeley 
  remarked 
  on 
  the 
  difficulty 
  of 
  the 
  subject 
  ; 
  he 
  had 
  

   himself 
  deferred 
  writing 
  upon 
  it 
  in 
  detail, 
  and 
  considered 
  that 
  

   details 
  were 
  not 
  sufficiently 
  numerous 
  for 
  the 
  purpose 
  of 
  generali- 
  

   zation. 
  He 
  believed 
  his 
  published 
  conclusions 
  were 
  very 
  similar 
  to 
  

   Mr. 
  Lydekker's, 
  as 
  regards 
  general 
  interpretation. 
  In 
  some 
  details 
  

   he 
  differed 
  from 
  the 
  Author. 
  The 
  fragment 
  of 
  marginal 
  plate 
  

   of 
  Trachydermochelys, 
  which 
  Mr. 
  Lydekker 
  referred 
  to 
  Ehinochelys, 
  

   was 
  a 
  case 
  in 
  point. 
  He 
  had 
  much 
  of 
  the 
  skeleton 
  of 
  Trachydermo- 
  

   chelys, 
  which 
  showed 
  different 
  family 
  affinities. 
  His 
  evidence 
  was 
  

   preserved 
  in 
  the 
  collections 
  of 
  the 
  "Woodwardian 
  Museum. 
  He 
  

   (Prof. 
  Seeley) 
  had 
  long 
  beenacquainted 
  with 
  a 
  Leathery 
  Turtle 
  from 
  

   the 
  London 
  Clay, 
  but 
  he 
  considered 
  the 
  specimen 
  too 
  imperfect 
  for 
  

   description. 
  He 
  was 
  disposed 
  to 
  accept 
  the 
  identification 
  of 
  the 
  

   tooth 
  exhibited 
  as 
  belonging 
  to 
  Ornithopsis. 
  Its 
  occurrence 
  in 
  Kent 
  

   was 
  the 
  more 
  interesting 
  ; 
  doubts 
  had 
  been 
  expressed 
  as 
  to 
  the 
  

   Sussex 
  vertebrae 
  of 
  Ornithopsis 
  belonging 
  to 
  the 
  same 
  genus 
  as 
  

   Ornithopsis 
  HuTkei. 
  He 
  might 
  be 
  excused 
  for 
  not 
  entering 
  further 
  

   into 
  a 
  discussion 
  of 
  questions 
  which 
  were 
  very 
  technical. 
  

  

  Mr. 
  Bottlengee 
  congratulated 
  the 
  Author 
  on 
  the 
  useful 
  work 
  he 
  

   was 
  carrying 
  out 
  amongst 
  the 
  fossil 
  Chelonia, 
  especially 
  as 
  regards 
  

   their 
  zoological 
  position. 
  Considering 
  that 
  one 
  has 
  usually 
  to 
  deal 
  

   with 
  mere 
  detached 
  skulls 
  and 
  fragments 
  of 
  shells, 
  and 
  hardly 
  ever 
  

   with 
  cervical 
  vertebrae, 
  the 
  work 
  was 
  one 
  ■ 
  of 
  great 
  difficulty. 
  But 
  

   he 
  was 
  glad 
  to 
  hear 
  that 
  Prof. 
  Seeley 
  had 
  nearly 
  perfect 
  skeletons 
  

   of 
  PJiinochelys, 
  as 
  these 
  would 
  solve 
  the 
  still 
  somewhat 
  doubtful 
  

   question 
  of 
  the 
  systematic 
  position 
  of 
  that 
  genus. 
  

  

  Prof. 
  Seeley 
  did 
  not 
  wish 
  it 
  to 
  be 
  understood 
  he 
  had 
  complete 
  

   skeletons, 
  but 
  very 
  large 
  portions 
  of 
  individual 
  skeletons. 
  He 
  had 
  

   cervical 
  vertebrae, 
  which 
  were 
  abundant 
  in 
  the 
  Cambridge 
  Green- 
  

   sand. 
  

  

  The 
  Author, 
  in 
  reply, 
  observed 
  that 
  there 
  was 
  a 
  possibility 
  that 
  

   some 
  of 
  the 
  skulls 
  of 
  EhinocJielys 
  were 
  associated 
  with 
  the 
  shells 
  

   described 
  as 
  Trachydermochelys, 
  and 
  he 
  was 
  justified 
  in 
  provisionally 
  

   suggesting 
  the 
  identity 
  of 
  the 
  two 
  forms 
  until 
  Prof. 
  Seeley 
  had 
  

   proved 
  their 
  distinctness. 
  

  

  