O. J. DE FEJÉR VARY 
(Müll.) Schleg. and the Australian Th varius Bhaw; to avoid incoherence 
in the descriptive part, all noteworthy observations resulting from 
these comparative studies have been communicated chiefly in 
the chapter following the description and treating of phyletic connexion. 
Amongst the. fossil forms reference has already been made to conditions 
regarding V. Hof manni; it differs from V. Gayluxi in the" same, characters 
mentioned as dissimilarities between V. Gayluxii and F. Hof manni. . v 
In view of as perfect an elaboration of the subject as possible, this 
description has been divided into three parts, the first, pf which contains the 
enumeration of the examined fossil remains ; the second part treats of the 
morphology of the remains, whilst in the third the systematical position 
of the species together with different questions of..biological, phyletical and 
zoogeographical order have "been discussed, lending due consideration to 
diverse phenomena and parallel feat mes observed in various members 
of the animal world extending over facts of gnii e r al biological 
value. 
a) Material examined. 
A ) Skull. 
1. A left maxillary fragment ; Csarnóta (Upper Quarry). 
2. A left dentale fragment ; Beremend. 
B) Vertebral column. 
1. A cervical vertebra (about the 5 th ) ; Csarnóta (Lower Quarry). 
2. A dorsal vertebra (about the 11 th ); Csarnóta (Lower 
Quarry). 
8. A caudal vert e bra (one of the first postsacraL 
ones); Csarnóta (Upper Quarry). 
4. A larger caudal vertebra from Csarnóta, Lower 
•Quarry, and three larger caudal ones from Csarnóta, Upper 
Quarry. 
5. Two smaller caudal vertebrae from Csarnóta, Low.r 
Quarry and e i g h t smaller g a u d a 1 ones from the Upper Quarry 
of same locality. 
C ) Extremities. 
1. A phalanx; Csarnóta (Lower Quarry). 
(These 20 fossilia were all collected by Dr. Th. Kormos and belong 
to the Royal Hungarian Institute of Geology.) 
