412 
G. J. DE FEJERVARY 
«Five vertebræ, of which three are dorsal, one sacral, and one caudal» 
are recorded by Lydekker 1 which «probably belong to one of the existing 
Australian species, perhaps V. giganteus.» 2 No description and no figures 
are given of this form, also does it seem a somewhat premature and bold 
assertion of baron Nopcsa’s 3 to mention these specifically throughout 
doubtful Var anus- remains simply under the name of «V ar anus gigan¬ 
teus» basing this definition on Lydekker’s above cited very vague and 
cautious enunciation. Still more than the preceding, must this f o s s i l’s 
position be regarded as specifically uncertain, absolutely 
requiring due control and description. The conditional 
denomination of V. giganteus being already applied in literature to this 
fossil Australian Monitor, I propose to retain it provisionally 
under the form of: Var anus cf. ? giganteus Gray loss. 
Hab.: Wellington Valley, N. S. Wales. (Cave-deposits). 
7. Varanus dims De Vis hom. ine. — Pleistoeene 4 (?). 
De Vis, On Megalania and its Allies, Proc. Roy. Soc. Queensland, Vol. VI, Brisbane, 
1889, p. 98, Pl. IV, & A further Trace of an extinct Lizard, Ann. Queensl. Mus., No 
5, Brisbane, 1900, p. 6, PI. Ill, Figs. 8a —c. 
Nopcsa, Beitr. z. Kenntn.foss. Eid., Beiti, z. Paläont. Geol. Öst.-Ung., Bd. XXI, 
Wien u. Leipzig, 1908, p. 47. 
Mr. De Vis, director of the Queensland Museum, described this spe¬ 
cies on base of a single tooth deriving from Darling-Downs-Division, whilst 
an almost complete right maxillary obtained a few T years later by Mr. Broad- 
bent at Chinchilla 5 (Lytton-County, Darling Downs), permitted him to 
publish in 1900 an additional note on the subject. As pointed out in the 
critical sketch concerning Australian. Monitors, doubts might arise as to 
whether the tooth first described and the young femur, mentioned 
but undescribed, as w r ell as the maxillary last published really belong 
all to the same species? For cautions sake I will in this description allude 
to the first one under A) and to the second fragment under B). 
A) The tooth collected at Kings Creek (Textfig. 15) is characterized by 
Mr. de Vis (1889 op. cit. p. 98) as follows : «With rare exceptions, living repre¬ 
sentatives of the genus have their teeth more or less compressed, and generally 
reduced to an edge on the caudal aspect . In the fossil tooth this compression 
1 Catal. p. 283. 
2 Op. cit. p. 282. 
3 Beitr. z. Kenntn. foss. Eid. &c. p. 47. 
4 «Piiozän» is erroneous in Baron Nopcsa’s publication. (Op. cit. p. 47). 
6 De Vis, Ann. Queensl. Mus., No. 5, p. 6. 
