82 



G. J. de Fej e r va ry: 



primitivity. \A e know that the first ossifications are ph^^lo- 

 genetically represented by primary dermal bones and not by 

 chondrial ossifications. Thus, if a well developed chondrial 

 ossification occurs in a form in which the dermal bones are 

 rather ,,membraneous", it is most probable that these latter 

 ones are in a phase of degeneration and not of ascension! There- 

 fore the discrimination between the phase of ascension and that of 

 declension^ i. e. between a beginning development and a degeneration, 

 is not so difficult in this case. And even if the chondroskeleton 

 would prove tobe more cartilaginoiis in the ,,Archaeolacertae" than 

 in the ,,Neolacertae", this cartilaginous State would undoubtedly 

 represent its degeneration and not its primitivity, as no 

 adult Reptile exists in which the chondroskeleton 

 would be in a primary cartilaginous State. And now, 

 as regards especially the secondary dermal bones, the whole 

 construction of the skull of the ,,Archaeo]acertae'' proves that, 

 as stated above, also these Lizards are undoubtedly typical re- 

 presentants of the cranial type designated by me as tectorbital. 

 The morphological structure of the lamina supraciliaris in the 

 ,,Archaeolacertae", and its segmentation (cfr. Fig. 6a), which 

 corresponds to the modern Lacertian pileus, prove that this element 

 has degener ated from an osseous lamina, and does not represent, 

 by any means, the primitive beginning phase of lime-concretions.^^) 

 The roof of the primary dernial bones of the skull in the Archaeo- 

 lacertae is predominantly smooth, so that in this case, on account 

 of the mentioned preliminaries, a reduction, i. e. a degeneration 

 of the secondary exoskeletal ,,crusta calcarea" must be admitted. 



Mr. Mehely believes that the apical ,,knobs" he found on 

 the caudal scales of the ,,Archaeolacertae" are ,,sensorial knobs". 

 I examined the histological structure of these formations, and I 

 was, up to now, unable to find any structure justifying this arbi- 

 trary enunciation. If, howewer, future investigations would yet 

 prove Mr. Mehely 's supposition to be right, this fact would only 

 Support the justness of the phylogenetical views pronounced, with 

 respect to this subject, by Mr. G. A. Boulenger and presently 

 by myself. A more perfect sensorial apparatus always indicates a 

 development, which, in spite of that, might result in being a degenera- 

 tion of some characters, and not primitivity. According to Mr.M e h e 1 y 



Cfr. p. 74 & 78 — 79 of this piiblication & Fig. 5. It is tmethat, in some 

 cases, allostotic bones might really be formed by the calcination of mem- 

 branes, though comparative anatomical research and eorrelativity clearly 

 prove in this case that the supraciliary membrane may be considered as a 

 produet of degeneration and not as an „orimental" bone. Besides, the 

 mentioned structure of the lam. sup., observed in the more ancestral f amilies 

 Scincidae and Anguinidae, does not make it probable at all that this secon- 

 dary exoskeletal element isdue to the calcination of a membrane, the other 

 secondary dermal bones of tl\e Lizard-skull not being either retraceable 

 to membrane-ossif ications. In this case the membrane, which might 

 calcify during the ontogenetical development (Fig. 6b), seems to be a 

 phylogenetical extreme, and not a starting point. 



