FOSSIL VARANIDAE AND MEGALANIDAE. 
855 
ticolus By. is without any doubt identical to V. marathonensis 
Weith. from Pikermi. If therefore my conjecture concerning the identity 
of V. Hof manni and V. marathonensis prove right, the species described 
by Bolkay together with Boger’s would have to be ranged in the syno¬ 
nymy of FT marathonensis Weith. 
Finally, as regards «Varanus Lemoinei Nop.» it is hardly possible, 
írom the drawings at least, to pronounce a meritorious judgment on the 
subject. On comparison with the humerus of other Varanus some differences 
appear which might have a deeper meaning. Mr. Siebenrock, to whom 
I applied in this matter, writes as follows about this fossil (in litt ., Wien, 
19. Febr. 1918) : « . . . . Weniger sicher bin ich bei der Figur 2, 2a, 2b, auf 
Tafel 6 in Journ. Zool. Voi. 6, 1877, ob das distale Humerusende, welches 
dort abgebildet ist, zu Varanus gehört . Wenn es dennoch der Fall sein sollte, 
würden die beiden Epicondylen bei dem Stücke verloren gegangen sein. 
Die gut entwickelte Trochlea spricht dafür, daß das Tier einer schnell¬ 
füßigen Eidechse angehört haben muß, und dies ist ja Varanus ! Von einem 
Krokodil kann die Figur nicht sein, weil bei diesem der Canalis nervi radia¬ 
lis fehlt u. bei den Schildkröten hat er eine ganz andere Lage, als die er¬ 
wähnte Figur zeigt. Somit bleibt keine andere Wahl als ein Saurier übrig. Ich 
glaube daher man wird keinen Missgriff machen, auch diese Figur einem Vara¬ 
nus zuzuschreiben.» To this substantial opinion it may only yet be added that 
on the mentioned figure (Textfig.18) the epicondylus radialis would perhaps 
still be discernible, if even very slightly developed, so much the 
more as with Varanus this proë ninence is in general not strikingly accen¬ 
tuated. On the figure however absolutely no epicondy¬ 
lus ulnaris is present, it may be therefore surmised that it 
either broke off or developed in a quite peculiar manner ; the figure un¬ 
fortunately does not make these conditions comprehensible (Textfig. 18). 
Therefore despite every resemblance to Varanus I cannot venture to con¬ 
sider as a fact its generic agreement with Varanus, as possibility must be 
left of this humerus eventually belonging to some other Saurian. For this 
reason I admit it in the systematic part as Incertae sedis, as an Appendix 
to the family Varanidae, under the name of « Varanus ? Lemoinei Nop.» 
The second «Incertae sedis» form of the Appendix to the Varanidae 
s represented by the remains which Nopcsa (op. cit.) designates under 
the name of «Varanus sp.». These are mentioned by Hofmann 1 , who not 
appearing to have possessed more profound knowledge in herpetology, 
under the title «Lacertilia» only writes as follows : «Die Eidechsen werden 
durch einige Kiefer-Bruchstücke, leider mit ausgebrochenen Zähnen, reprä- 
1 Die Fauna von Göriach, Abh. cl. k. k. geol. R. A., Wien, Bd. XV, 1889, p. 83. 
