4-0 
Record-i of the Geological Survey of India. 
[vol. x. 
of Hylceosaurus also resemble our Indian specimens in having two pairs of facets for the 
chevron bones, and in having a longitudinal furrow on the neural aspect of the centrum; 
their articular surfaces are, however, nearly flat, and their centra sub-cylindrical. 
The above comparisons, I think, prove quite clearly that our Jabalpur vertebrae belonged 
to a Dinosaur, closely allied to Pelorosaurus of the English Wealdeu, and to Cetiosaurus of 
the Bath-oolite, and also presenting points of affinities to Hylceosaurus and Iguanodon of the 
Wealden. The Indian Dinosaur, however, differed from all the above genera in having the 
caudal vertebra; distinctly “ proeaflous” and laterally compressed.* From the large size of 
the vertebra;, I propose for the new genus the name of Titanosaurus with the specific name 
of Indicus. The length of the posterior caudal vertebra; of Cetiosaurus varies from five and 
a half to six and a half inches, so that our Indian species must have been nearly as large as 
the English giant. The forms of the articular surfaces of the vertebne are quite sufficient 
to distinguish the Indian genus from all other genera of Dinosaurs. 
Turning now to the femur, we find that this bone is embedded in matrix, and only 
shews its anterior aspect; both the condyles and the head have been broken away, so that 
we are unable to estimate either the full length or breadth of the complete bone ; our speci¬ 
men is from the left side, and agrees precisely in form with the larger femur of Cetiosaurus 
figured in diagram 108 of Professor Philips’ Geology of Oxford; like that specimen, the 
anterior surface of our specimen is nearly flat, the inner border markedly concave, with a 
slight swelling two-thirds up from the distal end, which represents the third trochanter, and 
with the outer border less concave. The length of the fragment remaining is 46 inches, the 
breadth taken obliquely at the upper end 13 inches, the breadth of the narrowest part 
8'3 inches, and of the broken distal end ll'o inches. The specimen must have been at least 
55 inches in length when perfect; the largest femur of Cetiosaurus known is 64 inches in 
length. The femur of Pelorosaurus is like that of Cetiosaurus, but smaller; that of 
Iquanodon is distinguished by possessing a third trochanter; the femur of Hylceosaurus is, 
I believe, not known. The size of the femur, therefore, shews an animal somewhat smaller 
than the largest individuals of Cetiosaurus, which Professor Philips estimates to have 
attained a length of sixty or seventy feet. 
Both the vertebra and the femur having been found in the same locality, and from the 
same formation—both belonging to Diuosaurian reptiles of gigantic size, and both having 
affinities to the same group of Dinosaurs—it is a logical inference that both should be referred 
to the same animal; if the femur had been found alone, I should have referred it to the 
genus Cetiosaurus, but the vertebra forbid this view. 
Both Cetiosaurus and Pelorosaurus were reptiles of terrestrial habits, probably living 
in marshy or estuarine districts, and we may infer that Titanosaurus, probably, had 
much the same habits; its occurrence in the Lametas indicates that these beds, as has 
previously been suggested, are of fresh-water orgin, like the Wealden of England. 
The caudal vertebra of Titanosaurus belong to what we are usually accustomed to 
consider a higher type of structure than those of any of its European kindred. AVe may 
hope at some future date to find other remains of this huge Saurian, which will throw 
further light on its affinities, and shew whether it differed in other essential points from 
its European congeners. 
The Laineta group of rocks are supposed by Mr. Blanford and Mr. Medlicott to he 
connected with the middle cretaceous rocks of Bagh (see Rec, Geol. Survey, India, vol. 
Y, p. 115). The occurrence in these rocks of a Saurian closely allied to Pelorosaurus, and 
* The caudal vertebrae of Macrorosaurus semtius from the Chloritic marl of Cambridge, are procselous and com¬ 
pressed ; this genus is doubtfully referred to the Dinosauria. 
