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
348 O. J. DE FEJ EK V AH Y only conspicuous character to be found on the frequently published and well known maxilla of Palaeovaranus is that, whilst on the maxilla of Varanus griseus for instance, the processus prsefrontalis is short and curved backwards (towards the cavity of the mouth), the same on the maxilla of «Palacovaranus» is strongly developed and calls to mind that of the Ameiva•or Lacerfa-types ; furthermore with Palaeovaranus the angle enclosed within the lamina horizontalis maxilla? and the crista dentalis is pointed, approximately 90°, whilst the same angle on the maxilla of V. griseus DAUD. is considerably less marked and obtuse. These differences however appear only in comparison to V. griseus ; V. salvator LAUR., V. varius SHAW, or V. niloticus L. in this respect absolutely agree with «Palaeoiaranus» in the essential points, wherefore no generic importance can in this case be attributed to these characters. Neither should the totally insignificant characters, mentioned by DE STEFANO (op. cit. p. 411) as particularly relating to the genus «Palaeovaramis», be considered otherwise than at best as of a specific nature. In other respects I have therefore been yet less able to discover such characters as might in the slightest degree justify a generic distinction; not even the argument usually put forward by those who with predilection establish new species, of an important digression separating the age of the genus Varanus from the Quercy remains, can here deserve consideration, as LAPPARANT 1 judges the latter as originating from Oligocène strata, whilst DE STEFANO writes as follows about their age (op. cit. p. 387): «Io riterrei che il deposito debba estendersi a tut ta l'epoca oligocenica e forse anche ai primi tempi del Miocene vero e proprio . . .» 2 . And considering that the u n d e r Miocene Varanus howeverto point out most categorically that the possibility of this eventuality is a me re supposition of mine, not supported by any concrete data. If taking this supposition for granted, it might be surmised that the prominent basi occipital processes strongly developed in «.Prolrachysaiirus»of DE STEFANO, yet lacking in recent Moni t o r s, were lost by the latters in the course of phyletic evolution. These basiocci pi t a 1 processes were strongly developed in some ancentral La ce rtilians as for instance in the Mososaurid Tylosaurim dyspleor COPE (see OSBORN, p. 70in : A complete Mososanr. Skeleton &c, Mem. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., Vol. I, Part IV, New-York. 1903). 1 Traité de Géol., 4 ÈME Edit., Paris, 1900, Géol. proprement dite, p. 1500 -1501. 2 It must be remarked that the Quercy phosphorites are held by many as partly being still from the u ppé I Eocene; ZlTTEL, for instance speaks of (op, cit.) «obereocäne Phosphoriten». I myself shared in his opinion,and in alluding to the geological extension of the Tailless Bat rachians ( Anura) (Anoures Fossiles des couches Préglaciaires de Püspökfürdő en Hongrie, Földtani Közi., p. 141-169 & 193-199, Pl. I— III, Budapest, 1917) I inscribed the Quercy remains as from upperEoc e n e strata. BROIM (op. cit. p. 210) writes about «obereoeänen bis miocänen Phosphoriten von <Jiiercy>> and I conform myself to t hi s supposition until fresh light be thrown on
