is 
240 B. NATURAL HISTORY. 
new definition, so much so indeed as to constitute a substitution. 
The Rbynchocephalia (an order which Huxley has not recognized), 
Testudinata, and Sauropterygia agree in the essential structures of 
the quadrate element, and the simplicity of the rib attachment ; 
they also agree in the abdominal ribs and plane vertebral centra. 
The capitular rib articulations are on processes in the last, in the 
Testudinata in pits, but in Sphenodon almost sessile on the centra. 
If Rhynchosaurus be a Rhynchocephalian, it has tortoise-like jaws ; 
so has the Sauropterygian Placodus in some respects. Natatory 
fins of Plesiosaurus, etc., are repeated in the turtle Sphargis. So, 
though this association into the subclass which I have called Syn- 
aptosauria appears at first sight unnatural, it probably has a basis 
in nature. 
2. The Ornithochire of Seeley do not appear to belong to the 
Ornithosauria, but to the Birds, where they would enter the sub- 
class Saurure with the Archexopteryx. This depends on the accu- 
racy of Seeley’s statement that the metatarsi are united, and there 
seems to be no reason to doubt it. This learned author does not - 
state whether the tarsal bones are distinct or not; though confluent 
metatarsi suggest union of these also, since the Dinosauria lose 
the distinctness of the tarsals, and preserve separate metatarsals. 
This group will be annectant to the Reptilia by their near allies 
the Ornithosaurian group of Dimorphodonte of Seeley. 
3. The arrangement of the Lacertilia is the same as that pro- 
posed. by the author in 1864, with three exceptions. The Rhipto- 
glossa are separated from the Pachyglossa by a wider interval, and 
the two groups are regarded as of primary value. In the system 
quoted they are united into one primary group, — the Acrodonta. 
Secondly, the Sphenodontide (Hatteriide) are removed from the 
the Ornithoscelida.” I united Compsognathus with the Dinosauria in 1867, on 
account of the foot structure (as quoted by Professor Huxley, p. 24), but regarded 
its subordinate modification of arrangement as indicative of a subordinate divi- 
sion, Symphypoda. This is exactly the course adopted by Professor Huxley in 
1869, only he changes the name of Symphypoda to Compsognatha, and gives dif- 
ferent characters to it. As to the groups Ornithopoda and Goniopoda, as ascribed 
to me, they cannot be found in my papers. On page 24 Professor Huxley supports 
Cuvier’s determination of the position of the tibia in Dinosauria, as different 
from mine, observing that ‘“ Cuvier was right from a morphological point of 
view, when he declared the tibia to be laterally compressed,” etc. This point I 
never contested; but that Cuvier was wrong so far as actual position is con- 
cerned, as I have proposed, is evidently Professor Huxley’s opinion, since he 
arranges the tibia in his descriptions and plates precisely as I did in 1867. 
