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

Varanus Lemoinei NOPCSA Varanus sp. NOPCSA Varanus desetiicola By. Passing over to a critical review of these genera's and species' 1 systematic value, let us first examine the rights entitling the subsistence of the genus Palaeovaranus FILH. In the light of our present knowledge from a z o o logical point of view, — and not considering as any benefit to the peculiar furthering of science the endeavours of most palaeontologists, to establish new species and genera,

2 — a negative answer ought to be given. I have not found a single morphological character which might distinguish the genus Palaeovaranus from Varanus and. such differences as palaeontologists may have surmised between the two genera, can only be attributed to precarious knowledge in zoology.

3 The 2 The first mentioned real Varanus alluded to by JOURD AM as «un reptile très voisin du monitor 11- r r e s t r e d'E g y p t c» is no more referred tóin any publications having lately appeared. 2 It is a fact that frequently in consequence of either the fragmentary state of the remains or inaccessibility of the already described original ones, thus confined to frequently insufficient data, synonyms necessarily arise. This undoubtedly is at length less harmful for the system than would be the practice, resulting from careless determination, of crowding in some aheady known systematic unit any new fossil in tooimperfect a state to allow accurate definition. We must however also remark that many are the «ncw» species and genera which arise without these compelling circumstances enforcing a provisional establishment of species and genera.. The fault consists generally in a «necessity of establishing new species» which we may meet with just as frequently among palaeontologists not having mastered the required zoological knowledge, as among zoologists studying palaeontological material for the purpose of comparison with recent one, yet not having acquired sufficient experience and erudition on the subject in general, or as regards literature and system specially referring to palœontology. — Concerning palœozoological nomenclature see : FEJÉRVÁRY, Notes de Nomencl. Palaeozool., appearing in: Bull. Soc. Vaud. Sc. Nat., Lausanne 1919. 3 In his account of the Phosphorites of Quercy DE STEFANO (op. cit. p. 406 — 407) describes two fragments of the occipital region of a Lacertilian ; comparing these with recent material, he states having not been able to discover any likeness between them and the corresponding parts inMonitors, Iguanas or O p h i s a u r s . According to DE STEFANO the shape of the latter fossil bones bore greatest resemblance to the occiput of the Australian genus Trachysaurus, to which he allies the Quercy form under the generic name of Pro rachysawui. So far as a comparison could be established between Trachysaurus and «Protrachysaurus» on the base of DE STEFANO'« somewhat defectivephotographs representing the latter form, I must confess that in some respects the likeness seems a striking one, hereby differing a good deal from the cranium osseum of recent Monitors. However the question might arise whether these fragments of skull could not be regarded as belonging to the reptile we examine here under the name of Varanus Gaylux ? In this case the genus Palaeovaranus would be a fully justified one. I wish-