188 
PROFESSOR H. G. SEELEY OH THE STRUCTURE, ORGANIZATION, 
the Crocodile, his identification was excusable. Cuvier goes on to argue that the 
number of teeth in the lower jaw of a Crocodile is at fewest fifteen, while in the upper 
jaw there would be seventeen or eighteen extending back to the middle of the orbit, 
whereas the fossil has only eleven teeth, which reach back to the anterior angle of 
the orbit. On this evidence the skull is interpreted as that of a Lacertilian, allied 
to the Monitor. The author goes on to show that other parts of the skeleton confirm 
the inference from the skull. Thus the hind limb has five digits, with the number of 
phalanges in them successively 2, 3, 4, 5, 3, which agrees with the Monitor. The 
correspondence extends to the larger bones of the extremities. Cuvier only detected 
two differences of specific value : first, the spinous processes of the dorsal vertebrae 
are much more elevated than in Monitors; and secondly, the foreleg is relatively 
longer in proportion to the femur and the foot. It is unnecessary to offer any detailed 
discussion of this interpretation, for the figure now given, when compared with 
Spener’s figure, shows that Cuvier had not the evidence fairly before him. 
Yon Meyer also studied the published figures, and came to the conclusion that 
the fossil was neither a Crocodile nor a Monitor; but that it was an extinct 
type which differed by remarkable modifications and peculiarities from the Saurian 
group. In consequence he founded the genus Protorosairrus in 1830, and described 
the species as Protorosaurus Speneri in 1832.* Cuvier’s influence, however, continued 
to govern the views held as to the affinities of this animal, although von Meyer’s 
name was adopted in Owen’s ■ Odontography.’ Eventually von Meyer, finding- 
in various museums twenty-one specimens which appeared to him referable to 
Protorosaurus, made these fossils the subject of an elaborate monograph with nine 
folio plates, published in 1856. t Nearly all these specimens were studied and 
measured by the author. But unfortunately the type, which passed into the collec¬ 
tion of John Hunter, was unknown to him, and he reproduces in outline Spener’s 
unsatisfactory figure of 1710. Yet such was von Meyer’s confidence in the figure 
that he supposes the soft parts about the mouth to be preserved. Nothing of value, 
therefore, is contributed to knowledge of the skull. The whole of the specimens are 
referred with some doubt to one species ; and a detailed anatomical description is 
given of the several regions of the skeleton. The neck is suggestive of the vertebras 
of Ornithosaurs and of the Giraffe, but is not compared with that of a Bird because 
the number of cervical vertebrse recalls that of the Crocodile. The dorsal vertebrae 
are more numerous than those of the Crocodile, but their shape differs from that seen 
in all living Saurians [as then known]. The ribs on the whole were Lacertilian. The 
absence of lumbar vertebrse was regarded as conclusive against affinities with Monitors. 
The sacral vertebrse in the several examples are considered to number two, three, or 
four. The tail vertebrse are distinctive in having the neural spine divided. In the 
shoulder-girdle some resemblances are seen to Archsegosaurus. No important 
* ‘ Palaeologica,’ 1832, pp. 109, 208. 
f ‘ Fauna der Vorwelfc,’ “ Saui-ier aus dem Kupferschiefer der Zechstein-Formation.” 
