FOSSIL VARA NID AE AND MEG A LA NID AE. 
881 
therefore neither be regarded as an obstacle from the biological 
point of view. 
Finally setting these questions aside, and taking into account the 
length of time alone, this in it se 1 f can nowise furnish 
any biological reason for proving against a specific agreement 
of the two forms mentioned ; specific identity, under these circumstances,, 
merely implies atype persisting to a certain degree, so that during 
the ages mentioned, — taking an identity of species for granted — it must 
have borne an e p i s t a t i c a 1 character, as in general forms of slighter 
sensibility incline to epistasis under conditions not particularly affecting 
their mode of life. This phenomenon is so frequently met with in palaeonto¬ 
logy that examples appear superfluous. I shall merely refer to Rana esculenta 
L. existing from the Pliocene unto this day, hence also per¬ 
sisting during two geological periods. The Indian genus 
Oxyglossus may also be mentioned as having appeared as early as the 
Eocene, although yet subsisting. 
We may therefore conclude that palaeobiological statements do not 
contain any such facts as would induce to the belief of an identity of the 
two forms in question being biologically unlikely. However since 
I was not able to found the morphological data gathered until 
now — to the proof of an agreement — on facts absolutely certain 
in every respect, and also reckoning with the possibility of no 
compelling biological reason subsisting for contesting a 
specific separation of the two treated forms — just as none 
existed to refute the possibility of an identity of them — not wishing to 
burden the system with eventually unnecessary or inaccurate synonyms, 
although having pointed to another possibility, I shall provisionally comply 
with the «status quo», leaving the question open to further investigation. 
Definite elucidation in the matter would at all events be most desirable 
as the palaeontological system ought to be liberated as soon as possible 
from the superfluous and unnatural ballast encountered for example 
also amongst fossil Lacertilia, where systematical denominations no 
more correspond to their original meaning or conception, and as Nopcsa 
very rightly expresses it — just in connexion with V. marathonensis (— V. 
atticus) — «...bei einer überaus großen Anzahl fossiler Lacerten 1 der 
spezifische Name nichts anderes bedeutet als ein Zeichen resp. eine Num¬ 
mer, wodurch das betreffende Stück leichter aufzufinden ist . . .» ; it were 
urgent to contend most energetically, although with due precaution and 
exactitude, against the signs of this degeneracy in system, as further proce« 
1 The denomination of «La certi lier» would be more correct. 
