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

ticolus BY. is without any doubt identical to V. maratlionensis WEITH. from Pikermi. If therefore my conjecture concerning the identity of V

. Hofmanni and V. marathonensis prove right, the species described by BOLKAY together with ROGER'S would have to be ranged in the synonymy of V. maratlionensis WEITH. Finally, as regards « Fa ran«* Lemoinei XOP.» it is hardly possible, from the drawings at least, to pronounce a meritorious judgment on the subject. On comparison with the humerus of other Varanus some differences appear which might have

. a deeper meaning. Mr. SIEBENROCK, to whom I applied in this matter, writes as follows about this fossil (in litt., Wien, 19. Febr. 1918) : « . . . . Weniger siehe}' bin ich bei der Figur 2, 2a, 2b, auf Tafel H in Journ. Zool. Vol. 6, 1877, ob das distale Humerusende, welches dort abgebildet ist, zu Varanus gebort

. Wenn es dennoch der Fall sein sollte, würden die beiden Epicondylen bei dem Stücke verloren gegangen sein. Die gut entwickelte Trochlea spricht dafür, daß das Tier einer schnellfüßigen Eidechse angehört haben muß, und dies ist ja Varanus ! Von einem Krokodil kann die Figur nicht sein, weil bei diesem der Canalis nervi radialis fehlt u. bei den Schildkröte'ir hat er eine ganz andere Lage, als die erwähnte Figur zeigt

. Somit, bleibt keine andere Wahl als ein Saurier übrig. Ich glaube daher man wird keinen Missgriff machen, auch diese Figur einem Varanus zuzuschreiben

.» To this substantial opinion it may only yet be added that on the mentioned figure (Textfig. 18) the epicondylus radialis would perhaps stilt be discernible, if even very slightly developed, so much the more as with Varanus this proë ninence is in general not strikingly accen» tua ted. On the f i g u r e h o w

r e v e r absolutely no e p i c o n d y1 u s u In a ri s is present, it may be therefore surmised that it either broke off or developed in a quite peculiar m inner ; the figure unfortunately does not make these conditions compreh?nsible (Textfig. 18). Therefore despite every resemblance to Varanus I cannot venture to consider as a fact its generic agreement with Varanus, as possibility must be left of this humerus eventually belonging to some other Saurian. For this reason I admit it in the systematic part as Incertae sedis, as an Appendix to the family Varanidae, under the name of «Varanus? Lemoinei NOP.» The second «Incertae sedis» form of the Appendix to the Varanidae s represented by the remains which XOPCSA (op. cit

.) designates under the name of «Varanus sp.»„ These are mentioned by HOFMANN

1

, who not appearing to have possessed more profound knowledge in h^rpetology, under the title «Lacertilia» only writes as follows : «Die Eidechsen werden durch einige Kiefer-Bruchstücke, leider mit ausgebrochenen Zähnen, reprä1 Die Fauna von Göriach, Abh. d. k. k. gèoli R. A., Wien, Bd. XV, 1889, p. 83. 23*