Horváth Géza (szerk.): A Magyar Természettudományi Múzeum évkönyve 16. (Budapest 1918)

Fejérváry, G.J.: Contributions to a Monography on fossil Varanidae and on Megalanidae 16

FOSSIL VA RA NID A E AND ME GALA NID AB. 345 1903 DE STEFANO in his before nientionetl article believes to have found in the p h o s p h o r i t e s of Quere y a new Varanian species which he describes under the name of «Palaeovaranus Filholi Gius. DE STEF.» In 1908 XOPCSA published his work already several times alluded to which contains a concise synoptical and critical study of the fossil Lacertilia of the World, allowing a general view of the subject, whilst summing up errors committed in literature as well as tIre Varanus- and V a r a n o i dspecies described up to 1908. Very helpful is the list he publishes of nearly the whole liter a t u r e relating to the afore mentioned Varanus remains. To conclude I must yet note BOLKAY'S 1 description, published in 1913 of a European fossil Varanus from the Prseglacial strata of Beremend in Hungary (County Baranya), which he designates under the name of Varanus deserticolus. However, as morphological considerations will later on prove, of the two fossil remains mentioned in his treatise, one only, a dentale remnant, belongs to Varanus, the vertebra being that of an Ophisaurus ! Before proceeding to the examination of the data comprised in tin above brief historical summary, I cannot omit mentioning yet a genus classed among the Eur o p e a n Varanidae. I am alluding to Progonosaurns PORTIS [Prog, pertinax PORT.), described by PORTIS in his paper entitled «I Rettili pliocenici del Valdarno Superiore e di alcíme altre località plioceniche di Toscana» published at Florence in 1890 (p. 25—28, Tav. I., Fig. 5, 6, 7). This reptile represented by four fragmentary vertebrae only originates from the Pliocene of Volterra (on the road to Siena) ; the remains are in very bad condition; the back surface of the articulation is broken, whilst the anterior one presents the shape of a cava glenoidea, which circumstance inclines PORTIS to surmise the procoelous character of the vertebras, on the other" hand one of these is a m p h i c o e 1 o us, provided with a well developed vigorous diapophysis 2 and defined by the author as vertebra sa era lis. This character plays an important part in the determination of the systematic position of the form in question; in the foot-note of p. 27 PORTIS himself refers to this phenomenon observing that this vertebra when so placed that the surface of the articulation before 1 Additions to the fossil Hefpetology of Hungary from tho Pannon, and Prsegl. Period, Mitteil. a. d. Jahrb. d. kgl. ung. Reichsanst., Bd. XXI, Budapest, 1913, p. 222-223. 2 I would like to mention hat in this matter PORTIS' description (p. 26); «Tale robusta apofisi trasversa (hypapofisi) mostrasi ....» might easily lead to an erroneous anatomical conception, hypapophysis being c 0 m plot e 1 y differ e n t to «a pofisi trasversa»; the drawing shows as clearly (Tav I. Fig. 6) that the bone in question is a proc. transversus and not an hypapophysis.