FOSSIL VARANIDAE AND MEGALANIDAE 
447 
lanian), a series of six ribs, an imperfect distal end of a fibula, and a nearly 
perfect ulna» «together with as many other bones (including a dentigerous 
jaw)». These remains include thus the first — and until now the unique — 
1 i m b-b ones known as those of M. 'prisca. Mr. Frost considered these 
remains as belonging to the same specimen, and his supposition was corro¬ 
borated by the result of Mr. de Vis’ examination. 
The vertebrae and the fibula are undescribed in Mr. de 
Vis’ publication, whilst from the ribs as well as from the ulna we 
possess some descriptions, winch I shall reproduce later on in the syste¬ 
matical chapter. 
Mr. de Vis mentions also a humerus and a s c a p ula, described, 
according to him (p. 94), «by the writer under the name of Notiosaurus 
dentatus, 0w.)>. Unfortunately no reference is made at all to 
these bones in thö description given by Mr. de Vis of Notiosaurus, the 
humerus being recorded — and not described — only on p. 95 as being 
Megalanian; nevertheless on p. 99, footnote, Mr. de Vis points «. . . to 
an error w 7 hich crept into his description of the humerus of Megalania by 
which the coronoid fossa was misnamed the olecranal». The question about 
the humerus is thus at least a very confused one, this element being recorded 
first as N o t i o s a u r i a n, later on as Megalanian, un des¬ 
cri bed in both cases, though being alluded by Mr. de Vis to a «des¬ 
cription» of it ; on p. 96 we find some measurements of this hu¬ 
merus, but there is no question again about an «olecranal fossa». 
About the «dentigerous jaw» mentioned as found by Mr. Frost with 
the remains above recorded, no more allusion is made in Mr. de Vis’ paper. 
On p. 97, footnote, we find the following observation : «While this 
is going through the press, the major part of the right side of a pelvis, which 
may without hesitation be ascribed to Megalania, has been added to the 
series of its remains». A description is naturally wanting also in this case. 
Dealing with Notiosaurus (p. 97) Mr. de Vis points to the possibility 
of Notiosaurus being identical with Megalania, concluding however that 
« . . . it seems to the writer that such an identification would probably 
have been incorrect ; we appear to be instructed by the proportions of the 
Megalanian bones to expect a dental armature of considerably greater 
power than that shewn by Notiosaurus. The argument is but weak, but it 
may serve until we are better informed». The argument cited seems effecti¬ 
vely a very weak one, so that I take it for granted that Notiosaurus 
is nothing else than Megalania. I undertook a conscientious 
examination of Sir E. Owen’s drawings of Notiosaurus (see Textfig.80) and 
came to the conclusion that, reconstructing the fragments, these 
are, contrarily to Mr. de Vis’ opinion, of a considerable bulk, and 
