Annals of the Transvaal Museum 
9i 
Measurements of the phalanges in millimetres 
length 
prox. 
breadth 
dist. 
breadth 
1st digit 1st phalanx 
23 
14 
— 
2nd 
30 
— 
— 
2nd ,, 1st ,, 
24 
14 
!4 
2nd ,, 
22 
12 
10 
3 rd 
3rd ,, 1st ,, 
at least 26 
24 
15 
13 
2nd ,, 
17 
13 
12 
3rd 
15 
10 
10 
4th 
4th ,, 1st 
at least 28 
22 


2nd 
13 
— 
IO 
3rd 
11 
— 
8 
4th 
10 
— 
— 
5th 
5th ,, 1st ,, 
at least 23 
7 
— 
__ 
Discussion. 
The nearest relations of our form are amongst the Plateosauridae and 
Anchisauridae, and it is clear that it belongs to either the one or the other. 
Th ^^Plateosauridae are all medium sized to large Dinosaurs with fifteen dorsal 
vertebrae, whereas our form is small and has most probably fourteen dorsal 
vertebrae, agreeing in this respect with the Anchisauridae. There is further 
agreement with the Anchisauridae in the relation of the lower arm to the 
humerus; radius and ulna are longer than half the humerus. The length of 
the shaft of the humerus stands to the length of the whole humerus as 58 : 93 
or 0-62. This relation brings our form in close proximity of Thecodontosaurus 
antiquus. Taking all these facts into consideration it seems clear that our 
form is an Anchisaurid. 
Comparison with Anchisaurus shows that the dorsal vertebrae are com- 
paratively longer, and that the pubes of the two forms differ greatly. Masso- 
spondylus is a much larger form. The distal ends of its ischia are coalesced, 
and each is more or less triangular in section. In our form the distal ends of 
the ischia are flattened through pressure, but it is difficult to accept that their 
section was originally triangular. Moreover, they are not coalesced. The re- 
lations of the ileum of Massospondylus carinatus (2, PI. XV) are different 
from those in our form, for it is longer than the latter with regard to its shortest 
height above the acetabulum. Relatively the dorsal vertebrae of our form 
are longer than those of Massospondylus carinatus. The relation of the lengths 
of the metatarsals in Massospondylus Harriesi ( 4 , p. 303) is different from that 
in our form. In Massospondylus Harriesi metatarsal II is longer than meta- 
tarsal IV, whereas in our form metatarsal II is shorter than metatarsal IV. 
In comparing with A mmosaurus ( 3 , p. 304) and Gyposaurus (1 and 4 , p. 293) 
I need only refer to the great difference in the ilea. 
The only other genus of the family is Thecodontosaurus. Superficially there 
is great resemblance between our form and the known species of Thecodonto- 
saurus. A closer study, however, reveals remarkable differences. 
A comparison of the ileum of our form with that of Thecodontosaurus 
antiquus ( 3 , Pis. LXXXII and LXXXIV) shows that in the latter the spina 
posterior is much more produced. The acetabulum cuts deeper into the ileum of 
our form, which resembles the Plateosauridae in this respect. The highest point 
of the acetabular concavity is situated much nearer towards the middle of the 
bone than in our form, and this is another point of resemblance with the Plateo- 
sauridae. The ileum of our form is manifestly different from that of Theco- 
dontosaurus cylindrodon ( 3 , PI. LXXXIV), and also in the direction of the 
Plateosauridae. 
