I

Ua).on I". Nopcscc-Britislb

. .

.Din oscru~~s.

109

,ttiug in of the severe climatic conditions which caused the formation

of the head.
Ii review of the various measuren~ents quoted above and a con, i ~ ~ ~ ~ oft i the
o n mnximum heidits of tlre platform in the different
(see Fi5. 4) would seem to indicate some deformation of the
,horeline. O W L I I ~however,
,
to the possibility of cri~llulativeerrors of
bbservati01l, to the probability that the inner angle did not always
befir the same relation to high-water mark, and to the subsequent
cst,cnsire modification by glaciation, I do not a t present wish to lay
nlllcll stress on this point.
Having up to the present avoided all consiclerations of a speclllative
nnture, I may perhaps be permitted i n conclusion to suggest a working
~ , ~ ~ o t h e s iIt
s . is well known that the late-glacial 100-foot bench is
to certain parts of Scotland, being absent in Enpland,
rel land, and the extreme north of Scotland (Caithness) (see Fig. 1).
Tllroug'ho~tits area of distribution it maintains, moreover, n fairl-y
lllliform level of 100 feet above the sea, and vhere it disappears i t
docs so abruptly, not dipping gradually belor sea-level like the
2.j-foot beach. NOW the (0 to 12-foot) preglacial beach of Southern
13ritain has not been traced within the area of the 100-foot beach.
Well within this area we find, h o w e ~ e r ,the (100 to 135-foot) pre(rlaeinl beach of the Western Isles. Now, makinq the admittedly
(la11gerous correlation bet~veen the two preglacial beaches, t 1s e
tlp~noxi~nate
coincidence of figures suggests that the moven~ent
(possibly block-faulting) mliich brought the 100-foot late ~ l a c i a l
beach into its present position was also responsible for the elevation of
the preglacial beach in the Western Isles of Scot1;ind.
'7

BI~ITISII
DIXOSAURS.~
P..\n.r I V : STEGOS~-~C;ZIU,S
PZISCLT,C,
SP. KOY.
By Baron FRANCIS
NOPCSI.
(TVITH NINE ILLUSTRATIONS I N THE TEXT.)
I WCE the O)~cosnurusof the Iiin~eridgeC1:ty lnay still be regarded as
the only well-known European reprosentatire of the Stegosauridce,
it seemed advisable, af terdiscussing in previous papers the Orn~thopodous
I&/psilo21l~odo?2and the Acnnthopliolidici Polncn?2tltus,to examine n represcntntive of this type. I urn therefore greatly indebted t o Dr. A. 8.
~\~ooclmard
for permitting rue t o do so a t the Natural History Ilfusenm,
nud ttlso for putting a t m v disposal a magnificent hitherto undescribed
Stegosaurian discovered hy Mr. Alfred Leeds, F.G.S., in the Oxford
Clay of Fletton, near Peterboroltgh.
On account of the small elevation of the neural arch of the dorsal
yertebrze I propose to name this new Stegosauriali species Stegosnz6l.zls
II.-;1\Tur~s

ON

~'~SCZCS.

The type-specimen of St. priscus in the Katural History JIuseum

I)cnl.s the register number R. 3167, and is represented by numerous
Part I, Hypsilophodo~z,with a, page illnstratioll,appeared in the GEOL.MAG.,
1905, pp. 203-8 ; Part 11, Polncnntltzu, op. cit., pp. 241-50, with Plate XI1
i ~ l S
d text-figures ; Part 111, Streptos~~o~zcll~Zz~s,
op. cit., pp. 289-93, Plate XV
(all in Decade V, Vol. 11, 1905).

bones ; a secoud i u d i ~ i d u a l of
, which the distal end of the pubis.and
some dermal plates have been described by von Huene as Stegosnurua
sp.,' is in the Sedgmick Museum a t Cambridge.
The type-specimen of S t . priscus is rcprcsented by thc following
material: 2 nnterior cervical vertebrs including the axis, 9 dorsal
r e r t e b r s or fragments of such, 15 caudal rertebrse, 1 cervical rib,
fragments of cherron bones, 3 left and 1 right dorsal ribs, the
right humerus and ulna, t h e left feniur and parts of the corresponding
tibia and fibula, carpal bone, astragalus, and calcaneum, fragments of
both ilia, parts of both pubic and ischiac bones, parts of t l ~ cdermal
armour.

FIG.1. a. Axis of St. P T ~ S C U Sseen from the right (most of the neurnl spine

wanting). b. Anterior cervical rib of same. c. Dorsal vertebrn of the

same. d. Middle caudal vertebra of the same.
Pertebr@.-The axis of the Fletton Dinosaur is of special interest, for
hitherto no axis of a Stegosaurian has ever been described or figured.
It is 12 cm. long; a t the posterior end its body is 4.8 cm. wide and
4.5 cm. high. Unfortunately the neural arch is much mutilated, as
shown in Fig. la.
The odontoid projects far forward; the centrum is strongly compressed
laterally, but as shown by t h e irregular split-like section of the neural
canal this is to some degree due to post-mortem cleformation. T h i ~
dcformation has also cnusect thc basal lreel of the ccntrum to be more
Centrnlblatt fiir Mineralogie, Geologie, und Palaeontologie, Stuttgart, 1902.

marked in the fossil than it may have been in tho living animal.
The anterior and inferior margins of the centrum show strong
rugosities. On t h e posterior margin two hypapophysial lrnobs are
present. T h c anterior nrticular surfarc of tllu ccntrum is plane, thc
posterior llloderatcly concavc ; both surfaces show a straight superior
and equally rounded lateral and inferior border, having thus the shape
of a circular disc, of which a segment is missing.
T l ~ cnrtici~lnrsurfilccs for thc lirst ccrvical rib arc sitrlntcd on thc
anterior superior part of the centrum, and on tlie middle of tlic arch
immediately above tho ncuro-central suturc. The neural arch is m11c11
mutilated, and only one post-zyg:~popligsisis preserved, which is situntctl
comparutirely high above t h e centrum. I t s articular surface is not
clearly defined, and is directed outward and downward.
With t h e exception of its being a few millimetres shorter, the
second vertebra, of which only the centrum is preserved, has
practically tlre same shape as t h e axis, the chief differences being
the stronger develapnlent of thc hypapophysial ltnobs and the
evidently more elevated pleurapophysis, for no trace of it can bc
found in t h e part preserved. Compared with t h e cervicals of t h e nenr
0.Lewnieri, preserred a t the Havrc Museum, thc description of which
will shortly be published else\vhere, there is a grcat differencc in the
laterally compressed centra of St. prisczrs aud $so in the rectangular
shape of t h e neural platforln (Hullje), which is sandal-shaped in
0. Lennieri, being strongly contracted in the middle. No great
difference between the cerricals of our Stegosaurus and the American
Stegosac~rusis apparent.
It does not seem improbable t h a t t h e left triradiate cervical rib,
represented in Pig. 16, belonged to this or to the following ~ e r t e b r a ,
for the distance of the capitulum. and tuberculum mould correspond
to tlre proportions we slrould cspcct to find i n thcsc rertcbrx if thcy
were complete.
Besides two processes for thc cnpitnlum and tubcrculum and tlre
comparatively short and flattened body of the rib, this b,one shows
on the exterior part a \veil-marked excrescence, which is represented
in most Dinosaursollly by a feeble ridge, but is well developed, though
with altered direction, on tlic cervical rib figured by Marsh as a rib
of Apntosauvus. I n Stegosaurus this excrescence is pointed outward
and forward, ~ n itd may perhaps be best compared with the dilatation.
of tlie cervical ribs in some Lncertilia. It iuay have serred for the
purpose of combining a limited amount of flexibility with strength in
this region of the body. A quite similar, though more ridge-likc
excrescence is also met with on the thoracic ribs of Ste.qosaurus, and
produces therc, together with a similar posterior ridge, t h e obliquc
T-shaped cross-section t h a t has been specially noticed in Stegosnz~rus,
but seems, as far as I am aware, to be present also in other members of
the Orthopodous order.' I t s origin may therefore have to be explained
otherwise than through tlie meight of t h e dermal armour.
The dorsal vcrtebrz of St. yl-iscics (Pig. I c ) approximate in gcneral
I would suggest tlint tlio Dinosnuriy.ns represent a distinct super-order,
which may be divided into two orders, Saurischia (Seeley) and Orthopoda.

to the type of St. zilzguZatz1s and 0. rcrmatus. Several differences,

Ilomerer, may be noted as distinguishing this species quite clearly
from either of the others.
4
I u St. z~~~gz~katus
the point from which the diapophysis arises is much
highor above the bottom of the neural canal than in our specimen; 3
i n 0. nrnzatzis this point is very much lower. Corresponding mitlr
this difference the elevation of the prezpgapophysis in our specimen ,
is also intermediate between that in tho two other animals; while
0. Lcnnioi shows much the same stage of specialization as 0. nmzatus.
'l'he direction of the diapophyscs is also different i n the different
unimnls, for tho7 areclirccted more outward thau upmarrl in 0. rcl.nzrctzc~,
more upward than outwnrcl lr. St. zlngzilatzis, nncl equally outward
'

Dingram illustrating the difference of strain on the diapophysis as

coi~elatedwith the elevation of latter. a. Stegosauriantype. b. Ornosaurian
type. p = pnn~pophgsis; d = dinpophysis ; x = weight of dernlal a i n o u r
acting on the rib by ?IZ ; y =.amount of vertical pressnre ; a (a')= pressure
on parapophgsis ; B (8')= strain on dinpophysis.
and upm:~rcl in St. yri.vcus, the angle t h a t they form with t h e neural
spine being in the latter just about 45 degrees. Comparing these
d:ita with Scelidostctc~z~s,me remark t h a t the elevation of the
diapophyses steadily increases as these animals specialize. Since the
bones of these animals are not pneumatic, and since a similar elevation
is not present in the marnmalia, tho~lghin these the development of
lungs is mncli nlorc importnnt than i n reptiles, I (lo not bclierc this
elevation had anything to do with the development of the lungs as
generally accepted, but I thinlc it is rather duo to t l ~ eincreasing
FIG. 2.

Stegosaurzn ~ J ) - ~ s c zsp.
~ s ,I ~ O C

113

.to Totheillustrate
this the diagrams Fig. 2a and 2b were drawn according
evidence affordcd by 0. armatzcs and S t . u?zgulattcs. By breaking

up in these figurcs the -vertical pressure of the dermal armour on the

rib y into i t s co~nponentsu ( r ~ ' ) and 13 (PI), it becomes clear t h a t in
St. un.qzclntus (Pig. 2rs) the strain ( P ) on t h e diapophysis (d) is by
s (Pig. 26, P') while the
ssure a (u') on the parapophysis (p) is augmented, for d = $ and

(1 animal, the increase

lting from t h e lateral
this animal not be of

Two other quite marked features of the dorsal vertebreof S t . p i s c u s ,

in which this anirnal'makes a close approach to S t . ungzclatus, are t h e
: lateral compression of t h e neural canal and the absence of cavities on
i: the sides of the centrum. The shape of t h e transre~*seand longitudinal
: . sections of t h e plano-concave centra seem, however, otherwise to be t h e .
:
stime in both Omosaurs and Stegosaurs.
. .

'

t . prisczts, but the proximal

T h e middle caudal vertebrse (Fig. I d ) of St. priscus have the neural

spine more elevated than in 0. wmatur, b u t not cleft a t the top as in
St. ungzcZatas. 'l'he section of the rod-like neurapophysis is triangular
a t the base, but oval and somewhat laterally compressed a t the summit.
T h e post-zygapophyses are not much elevated above the neural canal,
they are directed both straight downward and outward. T h e prezygnpophyses are correspondingly directed upward and ontwnrd. The '

FIG. 3. a. First (?) caudal of St. prkcus. b. Proximal caudal of the same.
c. Anterior view of distal caudal. d. Lateral view of the same.
moderately short centra of these vertebrse are concave a t both ends,
more so posteriorly than i n front; the sides are flat, the bottom keeled,
t h e articular sal-faccs for the chcvron bones largo, equally dcvelopcd
a t both ends, and nearly touching each other on the basal ridgc. Tiley ,
are not easily distinguishable from the rugosities t h a t occur round the

I;: R. C. Reed-New
'

&.tcstucea, Isle of

Wight.

,116
.
.

margin of the articular ends of the centra. The costoids in the middle
of the tail are rod-like elements, decreasing rapid17 in size backwards.
There is a great resemblance to the middle caudal vertebrs in
St. ungulatus.
The distal cauclals in SL. priscz1s, as shown in Pigs. 3c, G?, are still
more elongate thnn the middle ones. The centrum is laterally
compressed, as F I ~3c. shoms, and exhibits a pentagonal section, with
the point of the pentagon turned downn~ards. The articular surface
for the chevrou bone on these vertebrs is only developed a t the
posterior end. The concavity of the articular surface is also more
marked a t this end than at the other. The neural arch in these
vertebm, as in all the anterior ones, covers nenrly the whole of the
neural canal ; the elongate rod-like prezygapophyses are comparatively
feeble, their articular facets are directed as in the middle dorsnl<.
The narrow neural spine (Fig. 3d) rises in a rcnlnrkable manner
straight upwards; i t is blade-like, tapering towards its summit, and,
like the rest of this vertebra, i t is characterized by the complete
want of rugosities, thus indicating clearly that on this bone no great
mass of firmly adhering tissue mas present during life. This latter
observation will prove to bc of the utmost importance whcn we discuss
the dermal armour of St. priscus.
The distal caudal in St.priscus differs from that of St. zing~ilcttc~
and Dirncodon by the feeble development of the neural spine, and still
more by the development of elongate post-zygapophpses, for these are
quite short and nearly sessile on the blade of the neural spine in
St. ungzclatus, Diracodo7t, and many other Dinosaurs, though not in
Polacanthus. Tlle development of the neural spine and the postzygapophyses in St. priseus are features so strange for a posterior
ca~ldalthat if tho shnpe of the centra did not prove beyond all doubt
the contrary, one might hesitate to refer this vertebra to an Omosaurzcs.
Tlie biconcave nature of all the caudals of our Slegosazirus, and the
neural spines overlapping each other, do not imply great flexibility of
this organ.
(Tobe co~uludedirc OUT next Nzcmber.)

I~I.--SED(~\VICK
~ U S Y U YKO'~'YS.

NEW CRUSTACI-:A
PRO31 THE LOWER
GREENSAND
O F THE ISLEO F W ~ G H T .

AMoh

By F. R. COWPER REED, M.A., F.G.S.

(PLATE VII.)

TGST tho large series of specimens of ~lfcyeria recently

obtained by the Sedgwick Museum, Cambridge, from the Lower
Greensand of Atherfield, lsle of Wight, two nem and strange forms,
obviously referable to another genus, were detected by me i n looking
over the material. Their interest consists not only in belonging to
new species but in repsesenting the genus Thenops, of which the best
known and only British species, so far described, is Th. scyZlarifomzis,
Bell, from the London Clay. There is one imperfect specimen in the
British Museum from the Speeton Clay attributed (with a query)
to I'honops, but no otllcr British rcprcscntativo from tho Cretnceous
appears to have been found.

G1ICOLOGICA.L MAGA % I N E .
NEW SERIES.

DECADE V.

NO. IV.-APRIL,

VOL.

Vill.

1911.

ORIGINAL

ARTICLES-

-*--

1.--Noar~s ON 3it11.1s11 DIXOSAUILP.

PART
I V : STEGOSAURUS
PRISCCS,
SP. XOV.

By Baron FRANCIS
NOPCSA.
(WITH NINE ILLUSTRATIONS IN THE TEXT.)
(Colzcluded from the March Number, p. 115.)

Limb-bo?zes.-Since the humerus is known in ByZaosaurus (?),

Onzosaurus, and Stegosaz6rus, it is quite easy to ccmpare the humerus
of our new species with that of the other genera mentioned. Whether
the shaft is hollow as in Omosaul-us or solid as in Ste,qosnurus, cannot
be ascertained without breaking the specimen ; the outline of the new
humerus is, horneyer, that of Onzosaz~rz~s,not that of Stegosau~w.

Humerus of St. priscus. a. Posterior view of proximal end..

b. Anterior view of distal end.
The proximal c o n d ~ l was
e situated, as far as can be made out, much as
in 0, armatus, and the radial crest shows also the same curve as i n
this species ; the anconeal ridge, however, is more strongly dereloped,
and ends distally in a broad rugose area somewhat above the middle
of the bone (Pig. 4a). The anconeal depression and the trochlear .
groove (visible in Fig. 4b) 'are less marked in St. y ~ i s c u sthan in
0. armatus. The ridge for the supinator is broken off in the new
specimen, but if preserved it would give to the distal part of the bone
a rather 'dilated aspect, and thus produce a certain resemblance to
St. u?lgzclnttls.

FIG. 4,.

DECADE V.-T70L.

VII1.-NO.

IV.

10

Though the humerus me are considering has been son~ewhat

flattened by crushing, t h e inward bend of thc radial crest docs not
seem to h a r e becn as strong as in. the humerus referred by Hulke to
IFylaosaurus, with which i t might otherwise be well compared. The
total length of the humerus is 50 cm.
T h e ulna of 0. arrnntu.~is too much nlutilated to be compared with
t h e same bone in S t , prisctu. If, however, me conlpare the ulna of
Stegosaurus, we find t h a t it is less dilated a t the proximal end and
t h a t its shaft is much more slender (Fig. 5). The length of the ulna
from the h u m e ~ x larticular surfuce to t l ~ cdist:il end is 4 0 cm.
A large irregular flattened bone of somewhat parallclopiped shape,
the structure of which mould indicate that i t was almost completely
covered by a t l ~ i nlayer of cartilage, may be regarded as a proxin~al
carpal, though from lack of comparative material its position cnnnot
y e t be deternlined with precision.

FIG. 5. Ulna,of St. p r i s c d .

According to Marsh separate carpals characterize the genus

Diracodon, and this would tend to indicate a close affinity between
our Stegosaurus and this genus, but I am quite open to the suggestion
t h a t such a fusion of carpals i n some Dinosaurs may be due only to
old ago, and hence may not have either generic or even specific
value.
The femur of the new Stegosaurus (Fig. 6 0 ) is a long, straight, and
rather slender bone, somewhat compressed from back to front a t each

Stegosazcrus priucus, sp. itov.

147

end, and showing a well-developed articular surface suggestive of

that in the femur of a chicken i n which the epiphyses are not yet
fused with the bone or h a w been artificially removed by roasting and
boiling afterwards. The articular surfaces on the femur of St. priscua
are not flat but rugose, and show irregular grooves and furrows
resembling those of the bone-surface to which the epiphysis is
attached in birds and mammals. The manner in which these s ~ ~ r f a c c s
pass into the rest of the bone is liltewise the same as in thc strongly
macerated chicken just mentioned. The lack of a pit for the attuchment of the ligan~entunl tcres is another notewortlry feature of
St. p).iscus and 1111 S t e g o s a ~ ~ r i d zand
, the whole character of t l ~ e
articular surface is entirely different from that of the Ornithopodous
femur where a pit for the ligamentum teres is indicated. To sfio\r
the differcnces here referred to, a strongly macerated femur of Gallus

F I ~ 6.. Femora of various animals. a. Strongly macerated femur of Gallus.

b. Non-macerated femur of the same. c. Femur of St. priscus. d. Femur
of Hypsilq'hoda Foxii.
(Fig. 6a) and another which has not been macerated (Fig. 6b),
besides a well-ossified femur of Hypsilophodon (Fig. 6 4 , showing t h e
pit for t h e ligamentum teres, and t h e femur of S t , prisczcs, h a r e been
drawn together of equal size i n Fig. 6, and i t is thus easy to see
between which bones there is the greater resemblance. I do not wish
to imply by pointing to these similitudes thdt Slegosazcrus had separate
epiphysial bones, but I wish to emphasize the fact that i n this genus
n t cartilage on both cnds of the femur mas decidedly iuucli
the a m o ~ ~ of
greater than in the Ornithopodidse, and that the shape of the proxinial
and distal end of the bone must have beeu originally somevhnt
ditfercnt from the present shape. The lack of a trochlea on the
distal crid of tlie fclnl~rof St~,qosnuruscan give us a cluc to the
amount of cartilage missing, for Ste,qosaurus, bcing a terrestrial animal,
cannot have walked, and especially sat down without bending its

'

148

Barojz I". Nopcsa-Br.itish Uiuosnu~.s-

knees sometimes for more than 90 degrees, while as shaped in the fossil
t h e tibia would become dislocated if forced to make an angle of
wore than 45 degrees with the femur. This tends to show that the
cartilage on the distal end of thc fcmnr n i ~ ~have
s t been a t least 4 cm.
thick, and this is certainly not too much when we consider that the
distal femoral cartilage of the macertlted Gollus figured above had
a thiclrness of 4 5 mm., while the femur itself measured 94 mm. in
length. It becomes evident that just as we could never try to bring
the macerated femur of Gallzcs into correct juxtaposition to the
acetabulum without allowing for a great amount of cartiluge, so we
cannot base any conclusion a s to the position or direction of the femur
in Ste,qosnurlcs exclusively on the shape of its articular surface ; and this
must be emphasized all the more since such an attempt has recently
been made by Tornier in regard to the similarly-shaped femur of
Diplodocus. The reason why the discussion of the femoral cartilage
caps of Omosazc~usneeds to be so detailed is, t h a t Tornier has recently
expressed the belief that the similarly-shaped femur of Diplodocrcs was
only covered with a few millimetres of cartilage.
Even by those who hold the contrary view t h e amount of cartilage
in Biplodoczis is thought to be correlated with the aquatic habits of
this monster, but this theory cannot apply to the heavily armoured
Stegosaurs. I quite believe t h a t the feeble ossification of the sternal
apparatus and the low degree of ossification of the distal carpals and
tarsals in most Dinosaurs are much more likely to explain the great
cartilage caps on the femora of the Stegosaurids and similar animals
than the hypothetical aquatic habits. These features and the coarse
structure of the bones indicate a low degree of ossification in the whole
body, and the great masses of cartilage were probably needed to ensure
the continuous increase of sire throughout life. Perhaps this was one
of the causes for the rapid extinction of the Sauropoda.
Besides the development of the so-called articular surfaces, the feeble
development of the fourth trochanter is an interesting feature in the
femur of our new Stegosaurzcs. According to Marsh's description the
femur of the American Stegosazcrus shows no madred fourth trochanter,
while S t . durobriwnsis bears this process. The femur of the typespecimen of 0.armatus is too badly crnshed to show this feature ; on
0 . vetustus, according to F. yon Huene, there is no such process.
0.Lennieri shows a rounded but marked swelling with a rugose
surface that can well be called a distinct fourth trochanter, and
S t . priscus bears on t h e interior posterior surface, rather high u p on
the shaft of the bone, an obtuse swelling, which dies out very rapidly
both upwards and downwards, and must be considered as the last
trace of this trochanter. It may be concluded thut the variable
developlnent of the fourth trochanter affords a good character for
distinguishing the different species of Omosaurs and Stegosaurs.
The tibia and fibula (Fig. 7 ) are represented by more than half of
each bone in S t . princus. Like in the Ceratopsidze mid St. ungulatus,
t l ~ cstrong tibia is distally enlarged and flatterled on the antcroexterior borcler for the recoption of the fibula. B o t l ~bones are so
closely applied agninst each other and to the fused calcaneum and
astrilgalus that this part of the foot formed one inflexible piece.

.,

'

Stelloshirrzts priscus, sp. not-.

['

149

Although t h e tibia is imperfect at its proximal end its length can be

estimated a t 57-60 cm.
Since, ao already mentioned, t h e femur of S t . prisczrs measures
90 em. in length, the ratio of tllesc two bones in this species is 2 : 3.
while according to &1ilitrsh1s figures i t is something lilte 7 : 4 in
st. ungulatus.

FIG: 7. Anterior view of tibia and fibula of St. priscus.

The ratio between humerus and femur i s : 1 : 2.3 in St. ungzrlatus;

5 : 9 i n St. priscus; 4 : 5 in 0 . armatus. Thus, in the length of
the limb-bones St. przsczcs is intermediate between t h e two other
forms.
Pelue's.-With the help of N r . D. N. S. Watson, of Manchester,
three most unpromising pieces of bone have been made out to
represent pieces of the ilia. The left post-acetabular process and
portions of the margins of both ilia just near the acetabulum are
present. Though not very characteristic and rather crushed, the
post-acet:ibulnr process agrees in its slender shape rather with
0. Lerznicri and nrntatus than with Stegosaurus, b u t the absence
of the rest of the ilium is t o be rcgrettcd all the more, since this
bone is the 111ost characteristic for separating the genera Omosaurzcs
and Stegosaurus.

Sfeyosrrllr*ttapriscz~a,.y. lot..

151

a longitudinal cleft occurs between these two bones. Compared with

the ischium of 0. armntus (Pig. 8a) i t map be seen that tho distal
half, though i t 116s on its upper margin the notch cl~aracteristicof
Stegosnuvzcs, is much more slender in St. priscus, but the flat, desklike sl~apcis the s a n ~ ein both animals. If we compare this type of
ischium with t h e same bone in St. ungulatus or 0. Lennieri me find
a fundamental difference, for in these two genera the ischium is not
flat but twisted, and the superior margin of the ischium curves in
'such a manner as to meet in the median line a t the proximal part of
the ritther loug isclliadic symphysis, so that a great part of the
iscl~iunl is thus modificcl into a horizontal plate that overlies the
pubis. I am a t a loss how t o esplain this difference in two forms so
closely allied, for i t seems difficult to explain it simply through postmortem pressure. The longitudinal cleft between the pubis and the
ischium, which is present i n both species of Omosaurus and our
Stegosnurian, is u character found in all primitive Ornithopoda; the
closing of this cleft observable i n St. ungulatus must therefore be
regarded 11sa mark of specialization.
To facilitate a comparison of the ischia of 0.armatus and St.priscus
i t has been thought advisnble t o figure these bones of both species
near each other, and this seems all the more necessary because the
pelvis of 0. armalus has never yet been figured in the proper position.
Dermnt drmozcr -Associated with the bones just described several
barlly crushed pieces of dermal arn~ourwere discovered. Both spines
and plntes arc present.
The plntes are somewhat asymmetrical. Towards their base they
are rounded and equally rugose on the exterior and interior margin,
thus proving that they rose nearly vertically out of the skin ; since,
however, they are all more or less in a fragmentary condition, i t
seems enough to pnblisl~ only a diagram of the transverse section
(Fig. 9 a ) to show how tllis kind of plate would be inserted in the
tissue of thc body.
Tl~ough as badly prescrvcci as the plates, the two spines found
among t h e material show such peculiar features as to justify a more
detailed description. The fragments are nearly similar, and include
in hoth cases the base of a spine and its attachment-surface. The
height of the specimen figured is 29.5 cm., its breadth 10 cm., its
thickness a t the snmmit 2 . 5 cm.
Of the upper part probahly three-fourths or more is missing,
but the base is entire and scarcely deformed by crushing. The piece
shows an anterior and a posterior ridge, a more concave outer and
n flatter inner surface, the latter being divided into n superior and an
inferior half. On the outer side (Fig. 9 b ) a t the base only a narrow
rugose margin is observable: on the inner side, however, the rugose
area reaches much higher (Pig. 9 c ) and occupies nearly half of the
fragment, making an obtuse angle with the upper half of the spine.
The great extent of the rugosity on the inner surfuce and the f l t ~ t n e ~ s
of the surface over which the rugosities extend prove that while the
exterior part of the bone was only slightly embedded in soft tissue,
the interior side continued to adhere to the skin up to a much higher
point; hence we may conclude that this spine rose, as indicated in
J

Fig. 9d, very obliquelv from the body, or else th:it the curve t o which
it was attached mustdhuve had a t least a diameter of 80 cru., if not
much more.
As the lack of rugosities and the small size of the later ccudals
show that the end of the tail of S t . yriscus was not coveretl by
powerful muscl(>sand can scarcely have attained a diaketer of 40 crn.",
i t is evident that these two particular spines of St. yriscus cannot
have been situated on the tip of the tail, but must hare been on some
other part of the body. Leaving the shape of the spines entirely out
of consideration, and judging only from the evidence afforded by the
other armoured European Dinosaurs, notably Scelidbsazcrus and also
Hyl~osaurusand Pokccanthzcs, one would never be induced to place
the dermal spines on the tail of our Stegosaurinn, but on the scapular
region. This determination is apparently supported by the shape of
the actual surfaces of attachment of the bones i n question.

FIG. 9. a. Transverse section of dorsal dermal plate of St. prisczbs, with

indication of hypothetical attachment to body-tissue. b. Exterior view of
spine of the same animal. c . Interior view of the same piece. d. Marginal
view of the same piece, with indication of hypothetical body-tissue.

Conclusion.-As already poin tecl 011t in the course of this paper,

S t . prisczcs agrees i n the stage of evolution of its dorsal v e r t e b r ~
somewhat with St. zcngulatzc.~,while in its limbs i t holds an intermediate
position between 0. nr~?zntz~s
ancl S t . ~zc?zyzclntzis. I n its pelvis it
corresponds with the genus Stegosaurzcs, though representing a new
species.
Considering the developnlent of the preacetabular part of the iliunl
as a generic character, we i1la~arrilnge the members of the genera
Stegosazcrz~sand Omosnzt?.us in the following manner :Genus O a r o s ~ n ~ n(Owen).
s
Ilium not yery elongate anteriorly,
widening backwards rapidly towards the acetabulum and the first
sacral vertebra, its anterior extremity rouncled. Neural arch of dorsal
v e r t e b r ~slightly elevated. Five sacral ribs present. Sacrum much
depressed from top to bottom.

0. at.)l?atus (Omcn). Dorsal vertebrae with lateral pits; sacral

vertebrre not n~ncli :~l)brcviated. ltatio betweeu humerus and
femur 4 : 5 . Articular ends of feniur not nl~lchexpanded.
0. Le?znieri (Nopcsa). Dorsi~l vcl-tebrae nritl~or~tlateral pits ;
sacrnls strongly abbreviated. Fourth trocllan ter feeble but well
rnarlred. Articular ends of femur not mncll expanded.
0. celustu.~(Huene). Articular ends of femur ~l~oderiltely
expanded,
rnithout fourth trochanter.
Ili~tnlvery elongate anteriorly, its
s
Genus S . r ~ ~ o s a u n u(;"\larsh).
breadth invreasing onlv gradually backwards. Four sacral ribs
present. No very p e a i dorso-rentral compression of the sacrum.
~ r t i c u l a rends of femur not expanded.
St. durobricensis (Hulke). Femur wibh strong fourth trochanter.
St. priscus (Nopcsa). Neural arches of dorsal r e r t e b r ~moderately
elevatecl. Femur with rudiment of fourth trochanteri Ratio of
humerus to femur 5 : 9.
St. tnzyulatus (Marsh). Neural arches of dorsal vertebrz very
much elevated ; sacruls not mucli zibbreviated. Femur witllout fourth
trochanter. 1tatio of hunlerus t o femur 1 : 2.3.

By H . M. BRYDONE,
F.G.S.
(Co?tti?zz~ed
front Decade V , Vol. VII, p. 463, 1910.)

(PLATES I X AND X.)

'

P . ~ ~ O L U N U LSCA~DI<NS,
IKES
sp. ]lor. P1. 1X, Figs. 1-4.
Zonriuna free, unilaminttte, the baclc diiided by somewhat wavy,
shallo\r-, slightly diverging fol-rows into long narrow strips nll~icll
.correspond wit11 the lines .of zomcia; these strips arc occasionallv
. C ~ O S Sby
~ ~rery shallow depressior~s0;. furrows c;rresponding to t h i
boundaries of indivi(lua1 zoacia.
Z o ~ c i nclispoeed in gently diverging and out~ard-curvinglines,
which are i n some places confluent and in others separated by
~ibracularia; they are short and broad, with bulging sitles, but
very variable in size anci ontline, average length .55--6 inm., breadth
(~~laxinnum)
-6 111111. ; the baclc wall w r y soon leares the back of the
zoariuru and rises gently but steadilv u p to the let-el of thc front
wall a t the 11ead of the zomcium, and the succeeding zoceciurn
grows out fro111 beneath i t ; in the shallow part of the b:tck
lvall mar sometimes be obschrsed a pair of large foramina ; the
aperture dis terminal and large, oecnl,jing the upper two-thirds
of the area, irregular in size and shape, but r a r ~ i n ground n type
which is long, broad, and'nearly rectangular, with rounded corners,
rather wider a t the foot than the 1ie:td and with a slight inflexion
of the sides ; a t tlie head the outline often beconles indistinct ;
a fairly typical length of aperture would be -35--4 mm., and breadth
'25--27 m m .
O ~ c i asmall, inconspicuous swellings a t the head of the zocecium;