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 VARANIDAE AND MEGALANIDAE. 861 1° the description of 1889 contains a detailed enumeration of the morphological markings, being accompanied by a figure, which however, as mentioned above, is very vague ; the publication of 1900on the other hand, gives no description of the teeth, but annexed to il we find most fine and conscientious drawings. The figures of 1889 and 1900 thus differ a good deal from eachother (Te xífigs. 15 & 16), and elo not offer sufficient guarantee for specific determination err identification ; the description (of 1889) alludes to many characters equally recognizable on the later drawing (of 1900), nevertheless exclueling even thus an absolutely certain systematical determination, since some markings, as for instance the development of an «acute caudal edge», are not traceable on the laterally-viewed figures. Furthermore a determination based on literary references would in this case prove impossible by the fact of the characters (curvature, serration) enumerated by DE Vis often e>ccurring in different species where they show but relatively .slight moelifications. 2° The tooth figured in 1887 is decidedly larger and — as far as may be detected from the figures — appears robuster than those represented in 1900. — Having set forth in the above all the reasons causing my doubts, I note in the following three eventualities which may be foreseen, as far as is possible to judge so delicate a matter at such a distance. 1° That Mr. DE VIS' determination is right, the two different remains belonging to the same species. 2° That the tooth first described is that of a smaller individual of Megalania (— Notiosaurus) the generic (and familiar) determination «Varanus» being thus wrong. 3° That both remains, the single tooth and the dentigerous maxillary, are Varanian, though belonging to two different species, the latter fragment maybe to the second describeel V. emeritus. Another question arises as to the reason which may leave induced Mr. DE Vis to unite the small, undescribed femur with the tooth under the name of V. dims ami the equally smaller tibia with the humerus as representatives of another species: V. emeritus. What circumstances may have prompted him to separate these four remains just in this manne r, and what led him to separate these Varanian fossils precisely into the two species established by him? Mr. DE VIS' papers contain no clew to these questions. Thus both, V. dirus as well as V. emeritus, might prove of good specific evielence, or might also represent a so-called «mixeel species» ; at all evnts a thorough revision of the question is required. For the present, both must at any rate, be regarded as of very p r o b 1 e m a t i c syst e-