40 PROCEEDINGS OF THE GEOLOGICAL society. _[{ Noy. 24, 
detailed in the memoir entitled “ Belodon Plieningeri (H. v. Meyer), 
ein Saurier der Keuperformation,” which was published in the 
seventh annual issue of the ‘ Jahreshefte des Vereins fiir vaterliin- 
dische Naturkunde in Wirttemberg,’ and was published in 1857. 
This valuable memoir contains a description, accompanied by nume- 
rous figures, of all that could be found of two skeletons of reptiles of 
great size, which were discovered near Stuttgart, in the “red Keuper 
marl” which forms the uppermost part of the Trias in that region. 
One of these skeletons was discovered by Herr Reiniger, the other 
by Prof. Plieninger himself. Both were in a much shattered condi- 
tion, and were devoid of the skull. The remains of the first skeleton, 
which I shall call A, comprised, according to Prof. Plieninger, sixty, 
more or less complete, successive vertebree, the pelvis, the hind legs 
down to the phalanges, the humeri, a great number of fragments 
of ribs, the sternum, and thirteen isolated crowns of teeth, some 
entire digits, and separate phalanges. Of these, Plieninger figures 
what he describes as the best-preserved teeth and digital bones— 
the right and left bumeri, with attached fragments of the ulna and 
radius and of the shoulder-girdle, the left femur, the left tibia, 
with attached fragments of the fibula and the right tibia, and a 
massive bone, the nature of which is doubtful. 
The remains of the second skeleton (B) include what Prof. Plie- 
ninger determines as:—the entire pelvis, the ilia being separated 
from the sacrum, which consists of three bones, two only of which 
are ankylosed ; a femur; an ischium; a few bones of the feet; the 
two scapulz ; one perfect humerus, and the other pathologically 
deformed ; together with the eight vertebra which preceded the 
sacrum, with all their processes entire, and in their natural relations 
to one another and the sacrum. 
All these remains were found together. At four feet distance on 
the same level, and continuing the direction of the vertebral column, 
was a second series of seven vertebre, five and two of them being 
respectively associated together. No remains of any other animal, 
or any other individual, were found along with these two skeletons, 
which clearly appertain to the same species. The evidence which 
they afford as to the nature of the reptiles to which they belonged, 
is therefore of very great value. This evidence has already been 
discussed by Von Meyer (/.c. p. 268), who concludes that the skele- 
tons are not referable to Belodon, and judges, from “ a certain resem- 
blance to the corresponding parts of Megalosaurus Bucklandi,” that 
they might have belonged to a Pachypode, and possibly to Teratosaurus, 
a reptile from the same locality and bed, the jaw of which he describes. 
In this view I entirely concur. In fact, Plieninger’s figures, 
(which do not quite deserve the reproaches with which Von Meyer 
visits them) prove that the skeletons A & B belong to Dinosauria. 
But they also seem to me to show that one or two of Plieninger’s 
determinations are erroneous. Thus, the two vertebree of B, repre- 
sented in tab. xii. fig. 14, are certainly cervical. The bone called 
“ischium ” (tab. xii. fig. 5) is the united scapula and coracoid, havy- 
ing a characteristically Dinosaurian form. On the other hand, the 
