416 
G. J. DB FEJERVARY 
this occasion I must observe that I do not see any probability of 
V. dirus being identical with V. sivalensis, a certain possibility 
being nevertheless admitted, as from the zoogeographic al point 
of view the occurrence of the same Varanus- species in Australia and India 
would not be a new fact to science. On the other hand it is true that F. 
sivalensis seems to enormously exceed F. dirus in size, and we have no 
particular reason to suppose that the latter species was based on a younger 
(smaller) individual and not on a full-sized one. Taking into consideration 
the differences in s i z e it seems to me almost sure that these 
two fossil forms have no nearer relations in common, and that F. dirus 
was a predecessor or near relative of one of our recent 
Australian Monitors. Any identity with any of the living forms 
must be t h o r o u g h 1 y excluded, considering nothing else than its approxi¬ 
mately calculated length, by which V. dirus, appears as a giant in 
comparison to the recent representatives of the family. And if, although 
taking all this into account, I yet affixed the term of «hom. inc.» to 
the name of V. dims , this happened owing to the fact of its specific 
difference from F. sivalensis —unlikely as it may appear — being not 
yet proved, all the less considering that no maxillary is known at 
all from V. sivalensis, any comparison being thus — up to now — excluded, 
some possibility for an eventual identity of the treated forms existing on 
the other hand in the zoogeographical distribution of 
some Furam^s-species likewise inhabiting Indian Coasts or certain parts 
of the Indian Archipelago and Australia. The positive character 
that ought to be represented 1 by modern palaeontological System, 
naturally requires greatest exactness on the part of authors, and not 
allowing, in denomination even, the slightest doubt to remain unexpressed. 
8. Varanus emeritus de Vis. hom. ine. — Pleistocene (?) 2 
De Vis, On Megalania and its Allies, Proc. Roy. Soc. Queensland, Vol. VI, 
Brisbane, 1899, p. 98, PI. IV. 
Nopcsa, Beitr. z. Kenntn. Foss. Eid., Beitr. z. Paläont. Geol. Öst.-Ung., Bd., XXI, 
Wien u. Leipzig, 1908, p. 47. 
This form is also, like the former one, of very dubious sys¬ 
tematical value. As V. dirus, it might be either a «mixed spe¬ 
cies» or identical to a known fossil Monitor, F. dirus 
not excepted, 3 thus deserving with F. dirus the designation «hom. 
1 Fejérváry, op. cit. 
2 The reference of this form to the Pliocene period is on Baron Nopcsa’s part 
(op. cit. p. 47), in this case also, erroneous. 
3 See also the critical part. 
