849 
FOSSIL VARA NID AE AND MEG AL A NID AE. 
Hofmanm Bog. of Stätzling was also most undoubtedly a Varamis, it 
appears most natural that in the preceding period a genus presenting 
the characters of to-day must already have existed within a systematic 
unit which in the Oligocene could not well have denied its under Miocene 
specialized form. 1 For the above reasons I believe full satisfaction may 
be given to the requirements of modern system and phylogeny by 
synonymizing, as happened with the recent Hydrosaurus and PsamniG- 
the question. De Stefano’s words : «tutta l’epoca oligocenica» might also easily allow a 
slight retrogression in the upper Eocene; and as mentioned above he likewise 
alludes to the possibility of the under Miocene being here taken into consideration, 
whilst categorically denying the same for the Eocene; and though allowing (p. 386) 
that certain individuals of the fauna, numerous Creodonta for instance, most decidedly 
remove the age of the Quercy fossils beyond the oligocene, De Stefano refers to the 
presence of others, of Lizards especially (p. 387), which according to him prove yet better 
than the Snakes «la .non eocenità del deposito delle fosforiti del Quercy». His argument 
is that certain groups, as for instance Agamidae, Chamaeleontidae, Iguanidae have not 
been found up to now in the Eocene of Europe, which however is not yet. a proof 
of their absence in Eocene strata, and consequently of the impossibility of their discovery. 
It even appears most pro ba ble that the organic world did not lay stress upon the 
observance of limits of geological ages, but inasmuch as higher specialized groups were 
in question, they often undoubtedly extended back towards older strata, in correspon¬ 
dence with the time necessary to their specialization. Therefore, according to my opinion 
this proof falls away, in principle at least. Another reason why the Eocene 
period ought to be kept out of consideration is that, as De Stefano expresses it, some 
types show «uno stadio di transizione» which seems to me to represent a principally yet 
weaker argument than the first «proof» above mentioned, for there is no cause 
why a «stadio di transizione» should be admitted only just in the Miocene and not 
yet in the upper Eocene. Among Tailless Batrachians, Oxyglossus offers in 
an example as to ho w far back some re cent genera extend, remains of it being already 
to be found in the upper Eocene of India, which fact plainly shows as proved by 
palaeontological remains that the. order Anura for instance, already constituted 
in the Jurassic a group specialized in the sense of today 
(compare : Fejérvàry, op. cit.). 
Difficulties likely to arise may also easily be dissolved by the fact of the fauna 
of Quercy belonging to three geological periods, the more developed types representing 
the later, the ancient ones the older strata. Thus even if it were possible to prove that, 
according to De Stefano, certain Lizards truly only appear in the Miocene,, 
this would yet be no proof to the lack of Eocene strata in the Quercy group (see next 
footnote ). 
1 From what has been developed in the preceding footnote it were in any case 
very difficult to determine exactly which individuals of the Quercy 
phosphorites may be considered to belong to the upper Eocene, and which to the Oligocene 
or under Miocene; it is precisely the fact of the Quercy fauna embracing three periods 
which demonstrates the error of De Stefano’s arguments, for the forms which* according 
to the course of developement, prove younger, may be taken as belonging to the more 
recent, the ancient ones to the older fauna. 
