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
360 Ü. J. DE FEJ ER VARY Mr. DE Vis'publication on «Megalania and its Allies» contains valuable and judicious observations, although • unfortunately approaching in some respects DE STEFANO'S rather superficial manner of treating so delicate a scientific material as here offered by Palaeontology. Attention will be given to the descriptions of Megalania and «Notiosaurus») in the second part of this work, dealing on Megalanidae; DE YTS'Varanus dims and V. emeritus being alone considered in this place. Varanus dims is based on a single tooth obtained from King's Creek (Darling-Downs) ; DE VIS considers (op. cit. p. 97): «The separation of Notiosaurus from Varanus» as being «of doubtful propriety*, although having «at present no clear indication that Notiosaurus is not a good genus», he «cheerfully gives it the benefit of its discoverer's great authority*. DE VIS however points to the circumstance «that of numerous lacertian vertebras under inspection, all these of the Varanidae which are not Megalania, appear to belong to Varanus»; this latter genus, according to Mr. DE VIS, must have attained a very large size, this being ((testified by a tooth» on which his newly described species : Varanus dims is based; this tooth is conscientiously described, and represented by a somewhat vague figure on Pl. IV. An underscribed femur, not figured by any drawing, without apophysis, belonging to a younger individual, is ((provisionally referred* by DE VIS (p. 98) to this species. The other species, evidently originating from the same locality, — no peculiar notice being given to the contrary — and described under the name of V. emeritus, is established on the distal portion of a right humerus, to which a tibia of «an individual nearly one half as large» has also been referred; both remains are described, and the humerus represented from the ventral side on Pl. IV. Concerning the eventual generic identity of Notiosaurus and Varanus, I would venture ter suggest this conjecture being erroneous, sharing in another supposition on the subject, also put forward by Mr. DE VIS in the same paper, and according to which Notiosaurus would be a s y n o n y m o f Megalania, being thus, as I belie-vo, systematically r e m o v e el from Varanus. This latter question will be discussed in a more detailed manner in the ll d Part. I would at present merely note my doubts concerning the specific value or unity of V. dims and V. emeritus. The first species was described in 1889 by DE Vis on evidence of a single tooth, whilst in 1900 DE VIS referred to this same species a dentigerous maxillary originating from synchronical deposits of Chinchilla (Darling Downs). The identification of these two different remains is a very onerous task, a meritorious opinion being evincible only on base of an im me dia te examination of the original fossils. An identification on ground of DE VIS' literary data is thus rendered difficult owing to the two following facts :
