On the Reptilian Genera Euparkeria Broom and Mesosuchus Watson. 85 
Euparkeria. There is some doubt as to the value of the other point of 
difference mentioned. None of the pubes of Euparkeria are quite entire, 
but in at least one there is no evidence of a second pubic foramen. 
In view, therefore, of the general similarity of the pelvis to that of 
Euparkeria, its articulation with a typical Euparkeria femur and its close 
association with an undoubted Euparkeria skull and lower jaw, it must be 
concluded that this pelvis is a large girdle of Euparkeria capensis, its 
difference in size from the type being probably due to differences of sex. 
It is worthy of note that Watson found similar differences in two skeletons 
of Procolophon, of which he writes — " The male and female skeletons are of 
exactly the same length, as are their skulls. The dentition is quite similar 
in the two specimens, and I think there is not the slightest doubt that they 
belong to the same species. The female skeleton is, however, much more 
lightly built, having narrower and more slender limb-girdles, and limbs 
which are less than three-quarters as long as those of the male skeleton and 
much less robust. Mr. Boulenger tells me that differences of this kind 
often distinguish the sexes in living lizards, and I think it is extremely 
probable that the same reason accounts for the difference between my two 
skeletons." In Euparkeria the limb bones are more closely similar in the 
two sexes than in Procolophon, but there is a marked difference in the size 
and strength of the pelvis and shoulder- girdle. 
Browniella africana Br. 
In view of the foregoing discussion, I take as the type of Browniella an 
isolated femur, longer than that of Euparkeria and somewhat less curved. 
The resemblances between the two are great, but from the figures it will be 
seen that in Browniella the trochanter is considerably straighter. The distal 
end is less broadened than in Euparkeria. 
Mesosuchus browni Watson. 
The fortunate discovery of a second specimen of this interesting form in 
the Brown collection enables certain new facts to be added to our knowledge 
of it. The specimen consists of a fairly complete articulated skeleton 
lacking the skull — of which only a portion of a maxilla is preserved — of 
which the pelvis, hind limb and fore limb have been developed. The type 
of the genus is a somewhat unsatisfactory specimen ; but this second piece 
agrees very closely with the type in size and specific characters. It is unfor- 
tunate that the skull is not preserved. 
The fragment of maxilla is about 30 mm. long and carries nine blunt 
round acrodont teeth, which are not arranged in a single row but somewhat 
irregularly. 
Of the fore limb the parts preserved are the distal end of the humerus, 
