650 
the caudal armour of this lizard only differed from that of Megalania in the same 
manner as the horns of Moloch were distinguished from those upon the Queensland 
skull — namely, in the absence of bony tissue in their structure. The tail of Moloch 
horridits was also shown to be encased in horny scutes similarly disposed, these eren 
‘ more closely repeating the number and arrangement of Megalania ' than the scutes 
of Uromastix. Still another contribution was made to the subject in 1886,* when a 
sacral vertebra from Gowrie, Darling Downs, was described, and also a number of foot 
bones, supposed to show that Megalania prisca viss truly terrestrial, with well developed 
claws A number of fossil remains from a superficial coral-sand formation 
in Lord Howe Island .... were soon found to comprise parts of an, animal 
vei-y similar to the possessor of the horned head and armoured tail already known from 
a locality four hundred miles di.stant in Queensland. Of these specimens Sir Eichard 
Ovvent described and figured portions of the skull and mandible, the tail and the partly 
restored pelvis, besides briefly noticing an anterior vertebra, a portion of a scapula, and 
a fragment of humerus. He concluded that they belonged to a new sub-genus — perhaps 
a new genus — to bo named Meiolania, comprising apparently two species — M. platyceps 
and M. minor. Associated with the described fossils, however, were numerous other 
fragments which Mr. William Davies had placed amongst the Chelonia ; and the whole 
Avere subsequently re-examined by Professor Huxley, who arrived at the conclusion 
that they were all Chelonian.J The animal was now considered to be most nearly allied 
to Glielydra and Gypoohelys {Macroelemmys), and other Cryptodiran genera of that 
tj'pe, and Mr. G. P. Bennett’s Queensland skull and tail were unhesitatingly removed 
from their association with the Megalanian vertebrae, and referred to this new genus, 
for which Professor Huxley thought the name of Geratochelys would be more appropriate 
than that of Meiolania. He also re-named Meiolania platyceps, Ceratochelys sthenurus. 
A new element was thus added to the reptilian fauna of Pleistocene Australia, the 
Cryptodiran Chelonia being totally unrepresented there, both at the present day and 
among known fossils from the superficial deposits. Still more satisfactory specimens 
of Meiolania platyceps afterwards reached Sir Eichard Owen, who again presented 
descriptions to the Eoyal Society, and concluded that the animal displayed affinities 
both with the ‘ orders Chelonia and Sauria,’ but was more nearly allied to the latter. 
. . . . Another contribution to the correct interpretation of the ‘ Megalanian ’ 
fossils is unwittingly made by Mr. Lydekker in the last volume of his Fossil Mammalia 
Catalogue just issued. Among the foot-bones assigned to uncertain members of the 
marsupial families of Nototheriido} and Phascolomyidas are included specimens precisely 
similar to those described by Sir Eichard Owen in Part iv. of his Memoir on Megalania, 
as affording information in regard to the characters of the feet of this reptile 
It thus appears that under '' Megalania prisca' have been included (i.) lacertilian 
vertebrae and an occipital fragment ; (ii.) a chelonian skull and tail sheath ; and (iii.) 
marsupial foot-bones. The first necessarily form the type specimens of the genus and 
species, and the last are obviously at once excluded from consideration. The second 
series of fossils, however, require a name. 
“ Professor Huxley, as already remarked, unhesitatingly places Mr. Bennett’s 
Queensland skull and tail in the same genus as the Lord Howe Island fossils, and the 
reference appears fully justified by the specimens at present known The 
rules of nomenclature do not permit of the adoption of a new name Geratochelys, 
hoAVever appropriate it may be, and the genus must henceforth be termed Meiolania. 
. * Phil. Trans., 1886, clxxvii., p. 327, 1. 13-15. 
+ lUd., p. 471, t. 29 and 30. 
+ Proc. E. Soc., 1887, xliii., p. 232. 
