100 
Annals of the Transvaal Museum 
placing the described form in that family. It will, however, be necessary to 
compare it with the different forms grouped together under this name and 
with those without fixed position; perhaps also with some Anchisaurid. 
The South African Plateosaurid Euskelesaurus is known by some frag- j 
mentary remains. Only a few of the bones can be used in comparison and 
among these the femur is the most important. Now the femur of Euskele- 
saurus Browni is incomplete, both ends being broken off and only the diaphysis 
with the trochanter major and trochanter quartus being present. Comparison 
is therefore rather difficult. 
In Euskelesaurus Browni the trochanter major lies 15 cm. below the present 
proximal end of the femur. From the figure given by v. Huene ( 4 , p. 30) it 
is manifest that the upper end of the trochanter quartus lies from 26 cm. to 
28 cm. below the proximal end of the bone. In our form the distances of 
trochanter major and trochanter quartus from the proximal end are 12 cm. 
and 17-5 cm. respectively. From these measurements can easily be deduced 
that in Euskelesaurus Browni the trochanter quartus lies relatively lower than 
in our form. Of course the relation will change if the missing portion of the 
head is added. Now one cannot say exactly how much of the head is missing, 
but let us for one moment suppose that the relations were the same in both 
bones. To get the same relations as in our form, 9 cm. would have to be added 
to the proximal end of the femur of Euskelesaurus Browni. The distance of 
both trochanters from the proximal end would then be 24 cm. and 35 cm. 
respectively; these distances would therefore be twice the same distances in 
our form. v. Huene estimates that not much more than 5 cm. is missing from 
both ends together, and 9 cm. is therefore far above his estimate. The distal 
end of the Euskelesaurus femur is missing and if some 10 cm. are added for 
the missing part the whole bone would then have a length of 9 + 65 + 10 = 84 cm. 
According to the above relations our femur would have to be half the size of 
the Euskelesaurus bone and therefore have a length of at the most 42 cm. 
That is at least 4 cm. shorter than the tibia ! On the other hand the lower 
end of the trochanter quartus in our form was situated at least 28 cm. from 
the proximal surface. This distance can .certainly have been greater. In 
Euskelesaurus Browni the lower end of the trochanter quartus lies about 
40 cm. below the present proximal end, and if 9 cm. are added to this end, the 
distance of the trochanter quartus from it will be 49 cm. To get comparable 
results the same length as above must be maintained, viz. 84 cm. The lower 
end of the femur will therefore measure 35 cm. If the same relations existed 
in the two bones, the length of the portion of our femur below the lower end 
of the trochanter quartus would be 28 x 35 : 49 or 20 cm. The total length of 
our femur would then be at least 48 cm. Only one thing can follow from these 
different results for the length of our femur and that is, that our premise of 
the same relations in the two bones is wrong. The conclusion that the tro- 
chanter quartus of Euskelesaurus Browni lies relatively lower than the one of 
our form is right. 
The sections through and near the pubic neck of Euskelesaurus Browni 
( 4 , p. 29) are quite different from those of our form. There are ridges on the 
lower surface of the neck, which are absent in our form. The shape of the 
proximal surface of the pubis is also different. The head of the tibia of Euskele- 
saurus Browni has a greater lateral concavity. There seems also to be great 
difference in the distal end, but the figures given by v. Huene are not quite 
clear. According to the text ( 4 , p. 32) the posterior border of the distal end 
of the tibia in Euskelesaurus Browni is much longer than the anterior border. 
In our form this is just the reverse, v. Huene mentions that the type of 
