860 
G. J. DE FEJEKVAR Y 
Mr. De Vis’ publication on «Megala nia and its Allies» contains valuable 
and judicious observations, although unfortunately approaching in some 
respects De Stefano’s rather superficial manner of treating so delicate 
a scientific material as here offered by Palaeontology. Attention will be 
-given to the descriptions of Megalanio, and « Notiosaurus » in the second 
part of this work, dealing on Megalanidae; De Vis’ Varanus dirus and F. 
emeritus being alone considered in this place. Varanus dirus is based on a 
single tooth obtained from King’s Creek (Darling-Downs) ; de Vis considers 
(op. cit. p. 97): «The separation of Notiosaurus from Varanus» as being 
«of doubtful propriety», although having «at present no clear indication 
that Notiosaurus is not a good genus», lie «cheerfully gives it the benefit 
of its discoverer’s great authority». De Vis however points to the circum¬ 
stance «that of numerons lacertian vertebrae under inspection, all these 
of the Vatanidæ which are not Megalania, appear to belon g to Varanus» ; 
this latter genus, according to Mr. de Vis, must have attained a very large 
size, this being «testified by a tooth» on which his newly described species : 
Varanus dims is based : this tooth is conscientiously described, and repre¬ 
sented by a somewhat vague figure on PI. IV. An underscribed 
femur, not figured by any drawing, without apophysis,'belonging to a 
younger individual, is «provisionally referred» by de Vis (p. 98) to this 
species * The other species* evidently originating from the same locality, — 
no peculiar notice being given to the contrary — and described under the 
name of F. emeritus, is established on the distal portion of a right humerus, 
to which a tibia of «an individual nearly one half as large» has also been 
referred ; both remains are described, and the humerus represented 
from the ventral side on PI. IV. Concerning the eventual generic identity 
of Notiosaurus and Varanus, I would venture to suggest this conjecture 
being erroneous, sharing in another supposition on the subject, also put 
forward by Mr. de Vis in the same paper, and according to. which Notio¬ 
saurus would be a synonym of Megalania, being thus, as I believe, 
systematically removed from Varanus. This latter question 
will bd discussed in a more detailed manner in the II d Part. I would at 
present merely note my doubts concerning the specific value or unity 
of F. dirus and F. emeritus. The first species was described in 1889 by 
de Vis on evidence of a single tooth, whilst in 1900 de Vis referred to this 
same species a dentigerous maxillary originating from synchronical depo¬ 
sits of Chinchilla (Darling Downs). The identification of the;se 
two different remains is a very onerous task, a meritorious opinion being 
evincible only on base of an i m m e d i a t e examination of the o r i- 
ginal fossils. An identification on ground of de Vis’ literary 
data is thus rendered difficult owing to the two following facts : 
