268 



Mr. E. S. Goodrich. 



or possibly independently derived from some Cotylosaurian. Broom's obser- 

 vations on the South African fossils (8) seem to lead him to the opinion that 

 they belong to the Diapsida, but yet possessed only one temporal fossa, while 

 von Huene insists on the presence of one fossa only. An examination of 

 the excellently preserved specimen of Stereosternum in the British Museum 

 (fig. 3, D) shows us at once that it cannot be closely allied to the Ehyncho- 

 cephalia or any known Sauropsidan. Not only is it remarkable in the 

 possession of five distinct distal tarsals, but also in the absence of a 

 mesotarsal articulation, and in that the fifth metatarsal is the longest of all 

 and of quite normal shape. Since we know that the primitive Sauropterygia, 

 such as Lariosaurus, had a normal fifth metatarsal, the view of Seeley and 

 Boulenger seems to be by far the best established. 



Palaeohatteria . — The history of this genus is instructive. First described 

 by Credner(14) under the impression that it is closely related to Sphenodon, 

 it was credited with a skull provided with two lateral temporal foramina, and 

 for long figured in text-books and other writings as a typical Rhyncho- 

 cephalian. Baur placed Palasohatteria in his order Proganosauria (3), 

 including it in the Protorosaurida?, which he placed with the Mesosauridae 

 and Champsosauridse in the Proganosauria as a sub-order of the Ehyncho- 

 cephalia. Subsequently Williston (34) dwelt on the affinity of Palaeohatteria 

 with the Theromorphs, threw doubt on Credner's reconstruction of the skull, 

 but included this genus together with Protorosaurus in one sub-order Protoro- 

 sauria. In a later paper (36) Williston gave further arguments for his view, 

 and strongly urged that there is no evidence that either in Palaeohatteria or 

 in Protorosaurus there was more than one pair of temporal fossae, thus agreeing 

 with von Huene. 



The hind foot of Palaeohatteria (fig. 3, A), provided with a normal elongated 

 fifth metatarsal, shows clearly that it cannot belong to the Bhynchocephalia ; 

 rather should it be classified in the Saurotherian group with other reptiles 

 having a single temporal fossa. 



Protoroscmria. — The important genus Protorosaurus, first described as a 

 crocodile by Spener in 1710, was placed by Seeley in a special order of doubtful 

 affinity but not far from the Dinosauria (28). Unfortunately the skull is not 

 thoroughly known, and it has not yet been determined whether both superior 

 and inferior temporal foramina were present. Long ago, however, it was shown 

 by von Meyer (24) that the hind foot of Protorosaurus is provided with the 

 characteristic Sauropsidan hook-shaped metatarsal, so that we may take it as 

 established that this genus, about whose systematic position there has been 

 so much speculation, is related to the primitive Ehynehocephalia, Crocodilia, 

 or Dinosauria, and has no connection with the Mesosauria. 



