FOSSIL VARANIDAE AND MEGALANIDAE. 
415 
been the third, .fourth and fifth; the complete number of teeth in one 
maxillary can be estimated to 9, counting the stumps and excava¬ 
tions indicating the missing ones, and supposing by the structure 
of the remainder that the two wanting ends mentioned above exclu¬ 
sively consisted of the proc. zygom. and proc. præmax., no more 
teeth taking place on them. The pointed teeth, sligthly curved backwards 
and strongly furrowed on their basal third, might have been equal sized, — 
as also mentioned by de Vis, — «except, perhaps, the one foremost in the 
series» 1 which must be considered as naturally smaller; they are «set in 
close array with their bases in contact.» 2 The lamina horizontalis maxillæ 
is large, and strongly developed, projecting in its middle region under the 
form of a blunt angle, the medium sized broad processus palatinus; lam. 
hor..max. being at its posterior end about as large as at the anterior. 
Ala superior maxillæ (mihi) well developed, ' excav. nasalis relatively 
feeble, proc. turbinalis (mihi) directly bent forwards, situated over 
the proc. vomer, laminae hor. max. Proc. praefrontalis maxillæ 
well developed, strongly curved backwards, not very broad, slightly 
but continually .bent-in along its superior edge, which is rather curved 
inwards, and justifies the supposition of a strongly excavated nasal 
groove on the skull, in the type of V . salvator Laur. for instance, and 
thus contrarily to that represented by V. niloticus L, Eight outlets of 
the nervus alveolaris superior may be stated on the exterior surface of 
the maxillary. The food might have been of the same kind as that of 
recent Australian species, the shape of the dentition excluding a conchio- 
vorous mode of life as observed in (West-African) V. niloticus L. bearing 
an amblyodont type of dentition. Thesé are the anatomical and biolo¬ 
gical conclusions I was able to draw from Mr. de Vis’ figures. 
Hab. : Chinchilla (Dar ling-Downs). 
In the critical part allusion was made to the, possibility of V. dirus 
being a «mixed species» and concerning this point I merely refer to what 
has been there stated on the subject. Besides the possibility of a «mixed 
species» the following eventuality may also be foreseen: 
Owing to the reasons developed here above the phylogenetical 
relation remains necessarily an open question; I therefore provided the 
name of our Monitor with the designation «horn, inc.» 3 indicating 
its dubious specific distinctness. I must here note that concerning the 
«hnmologitas incerta» of F. dirus a fossil form alone might occasionally 
enter into consideration, viz. the Indian Varanus sivalensis Falc., 
from which maxillary-bones are. as yet unknown in Palaeontology. At 
1 De Vis, 1. c. L. c. 
3 Fejérváry, op. c. in Bull. Soc. Vaud. Sc. Nat. Lausanne, 1919. 
