50 ANOMODOFTIA. 



this impression corresponds exactly with fig. 13 B ; and the 

 difference between figs. A and B is precisely the same as that 

 obtaining between the humerus of the present specimen 

 and that of Cistecephalus, which is solely due to the different 

 aspects from which the bones are viewed. There do not 

 appear to be any adequate grounds for the restoration of 

 the hinder part of the skeleton. The contour of the lateral 

 aspect of the skull closely resembles that of a young 

 Dicynodon, e. g. the skull No. 47098 (supra, p. 20) 

 described as D. recurvidens. In regard to the alleged 

 reduction of the number of the phalangeals, which is 

 described as being 2, 2, 3, 2, 2, in the manus ; it appears 

 that the right manus shows the prepollex and the first, 

 second, and third digits in connection with the radius, and 

 what is probably the fifth digit attached to the ulna, the 

 fourth being missing. The prepollex is suggested by 

 Seeley to be part of the 1st digit. The 1st digit (2nd of 

 Seeley) shows two phalangeals; the 2nd digit (3rd of 

 Seeley) has three phalangeals ; the 3rd (4th of Seeley) has 

 two phalangeals remaining, the terminal one being appa- 

 rently missing ; while in the 5th digit there are clearly 

 three digits, of which the basal one was regarded in the 

 description as a metacarpal. 



Purchased from T. Bain, Esq., 1878. 



c. (Eurycarpus oweni, Seeley \) 



46075. Slab of rock showing the impression of part of the vertebral 

 (Fig.) column and portions of the left limb-bones of a compara- 

 tively small form ; from the Karoo system of the Sneew- 

 berg range. The type of Eurycarpus. Parts of the 

 scapula and humerus and the whole of the remaining 

 portion of the pectoral limb are shown; while in the 

 pelvic limb only the distal extremity of the femur is 

 indicated. The palmar aspect of the manus is shown; 

 this together with the radius and ulna being figured by 

 Owen in his ' Catalogue,' pi. Hi. fig. 3. The specimen is 

 noticed by Seeley in the ' Phil. Trans.' for 1888, p. 500, 

 and figured in the volume for 1889, pi. xviii. It is 

 there regarded as generically distinct from Dicynodon, 

 since the humerus is stated to be of different contour and 

 shorter than the radius, and it is suggested that it may 

 1 Phil. Trans, for 1888, p. 500. 



