510 
with the ridge connecting its under portion to the lateral surface of the centrum very 
ill-defined. The actual surface for the rib-articulation is not preserved, through 
fracture. 
The remains of the ribs consist either of portions of two or else one broken in 
half with the severed ends contiguous to one another. One of these pieces is sis inches 
in length, the other six and a-half inches, the former practically straight, the latter 
curved, and both laterally compressed. When united these would represent a rib from 
thirteen to fourteen inches long. The third example, previously referred to, represents 
the proximal end of a I’ib, with a simple expanded termination about three-quarters of 
an inch in diameter. 
Taking into consideration the general character of these bones and the position 
of the diapophyses, little doubt can be entertained that we arc dealing with vertebrfe 
of the dorsal series. In describing those of Flesiosauriis dolicliodeirus, Conyb., Sir. E. 
Owen says — “ The transition from the cervical to the dorsal series is effected by the 
usual elevation of the costal surface by gradational steps continued through about five 
vertebrae, until a single costal surface is presented by a largo diapophysis from the 
neural arch.”* This is precisely what w'e have here, the diapophysis assuredly having 
reached its definite elevation. Again, if I am right in conjecturing that the two pieces of 
rib appertain to one, the sum of these characters would seem to indicate the middle of the 
dorsal series, as the position to be occupied by the present bones when in situ in the 
column. 
Little can be said as to the specific identity of these vertebrae, but we can only 
compare them with those of the preceding species : — 
“ P. mnorospondylus, McCoy.— Cervical vertebra} with very rugose articular 
surfaces to the centrum.” 
“P. Sutherlnndi, McCoy. — ‘Trunk’ vertebrie, having the centrum two and a-quarter 
inches long, by three and three-quarter inches wide, by two and a-half inches deej}.” 
As regards the first of these vertobre'e, they are, so far as discovered, cervical, but 
if the dorsal are similarly rugose, the bones now under description must be distinct. In 
connection with P. Suthprlandi, the word “trunk” w’ould lead one to infer that dorsal 
vertebra) are probably meant, as distinct from cervical and caudal ; if so, the measure- 
ments are quite diffei'ent from those of the present specimens. 
Several species have been described from the Mesozoic rocks of New Zealand by 
Sir E. Owen, E.E.S.,t and Sir James Hector, E.E.8. ; J but I am unable to satisfy myself 
of the identity of the pre.seut specimens with any of them. Two, P. australis, Owen, 
and P. erassicosfatus, Owen, appear to be well known. The first is distinguished by 
the general character of its vertebras ; and the second by the presence of a very large 
central tubercle. Tho four others wo are less acquainted with, and a comparison without 
actual specimens becomes very difficult. Two, P. Hoodi, Hector, and P. Holmesii, 
Hector, are known only by cervical vertebrae; whilst of the two others, P. Tmversi, 
Hector, and P. Mackaiji, Hector, wo are only acquainted with cervical vertebrae and 
portions of the lower jaw of tho first, and general fragments of the skeleton of the 
second. Under these circumstances, as I am unable to make as minute comparisons as 
should be done, a distinctive name is not applied to the fossils now under consideratiou. 
ioc. Walsh Eiver, North Queensland (C. TP. De Pis — Queensland Museum, 
Brisbane). 
E. 
* Mon. Foss. Reptilia Lias Form., 1865, Pt. 1, p. 6. 
t Report Brit. Assoc., 18G1, p. 122 ; Geol. Mag., 1870, p. 52. 
t Tran,s. N. Zealand Institute for 1873 [1874], p. 333. 
