FAUNA. OF THE GOSATJ FORMATION. 



623 



Figures 2-4 are termed by the author vertebra of a foetal Dinosaur ; 

 but I am not aware of any evidence which enables us to determine 

 a matter of that kind, and I refer it to the same animal as the so- 

 called Lizard-bones (pi. vi. figs. 14, 15, pi. vii. figs. 1-4). 



Indicating these and some other differences of opinion from Prof. 

 Suess, and arranging the material, old and new, into species accord- 

 ing to my interpretation, I was invited to deal with the remains in 

 such a manner as my conclusions made necessary. As the time 

 available did not suffice for description of the whole collection, I was 

 generously permitted to borrow, from the museum of the University 

 of Vienna, the more important specimens, which required further 

 study or to be figured. The results I now offer to the Geological 

 Society. The subject confessedly presents great difficulties ; and in 

 the following memoir I have dealt with it to the best of my ability. 

 As already stated, the bulk of Dinosaurian vertebras, scutes, and 

 limb-bones are referable to two species of the same genus differing 

 in size and other characters. This genus is certainly new. But when 

 we come to examine the corresponding skull-fragments, there are two 

 species indicated (by lower jaws) which are both of about the same size. 

 There is also the somewhat smaller Dinosaur indicated by Biinzel 

 as Iguanodon Suessi ; and there are teeth that appear to be referable 

 to two other Dinosaurs, one resembling Lcelaps or Megalosaurus, and 

 the other somewhat approaching the Scelidosaurian pattern. Hence 

 there is great difficulty in referring the right jaws to the skeletons ; 

 and there is absolutely no evidence to show whether the hinder skull- 

 fragment, called Struthiosaurus austriacus, belonged to one of these 

 species, or is the only specimen of the animal hitherto discovered. I 

 have therefore some doubt whether, in the endeavour to make the 

 subject clear, a synonym or two may not be introduced, which can 

 only be got rid of by the discovery of additional materials ; and I put 

 my views forward with some diffidence. 



Of the new Chelonian indicated by costal plates which were sepa- 

 rate from each other at the lateral margins, I find no other evidence 

 except postfrontal bones indicating a skull covered with an elaborate 

 pattern of minute scutes, and a strong but imperfect coracoid bone. 

 Both these latter remains, however, are so typically Chelonian, 

 although the skull-bones joined by squamose overlap instead of by 

 suture, that I have no doubt of the propriety of including the costal 

 plates in the Chelonian order, singular as is their form. This remark- 

 able animal is associated with Emydian types which differ in no 

 important respect from existing genera. The Pterodactyles are very 

 imperfectly represented, and badly preserved, and require but brief 

 notice. The Crocodilians, however, are more curious, partly from their 

 remarkable resemblances to types previously known in the Green- 

 sand of ISTew Jersey and Cambridge, and partly from displaying new 

 characters in the vertebras. 



All the species hitherto discovered are peculiar to the deposit, and, 

 with the exception of those temporally referred to Crocodilus, Emys, 

 Omithocheirus, and Megalosaurus, must, as it seems to me, be located 

 in new genera. The most important new type is the Dinosaur Cra- 



