FOOTMARKS IN THE SANDSTONES OF CUMMINGSTONE 117 
‘Cheirotherian, nor do they present any marked similarity to the 
singular tracks found at Shrewley Common. The resemblance to 
some of the Ichnites (Chelzchnus, 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, 1 will only say that I see no reason for asserting 
that they were not, while there is some ground for believing that 
they were so produced. There is reason to believe that Stagonolep?s 
had a short and broad metatarsal and metacarpal region and long 
ungual phalanges. The footprints have broad palmar and plantar 
impressions and long claw-marks. The shape of the claw-mark 
answers very well to that of the sole ungual phalanx which has been 
discovered ; but I must remark that the length of that phalanx is 
somewhat too great for any footprint 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 Crocodzlza 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 /acare and Cadman, with 
notes on the specific and generic characters of recent Cvocod?/za,” 
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- 
ccodilian type is even less than I had imagined ; and in some charac- 
ters, such as the form of the posterior maxillary teeth, Stagonoleprs 
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- 
ture which I have ascribed to this bone in Stagonolepis do not really 
