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

figured by IÍOGER, present a centre of somewhat shorter and more massive structure, the cup being of elliptical shape, considerably extended broadwise ; this may suggest these vertebrae having, as ROGER says, formed part of the « Brust Wirbels äuk », which fact is also made conspicuous in comparison with the vertebra? of V. griseus DAUD. for instance. The divergence could therefore only be explained by the difference in the position of the respective vertebrae in the vertebral column (of V. marathonensis no vertebra? have as yet been forthcoming from the corresponding region) and thus c a n n o t p r o v e against an eventual identity. Another noteworthy feature is that ROGER'S measurements referring to the larger vertebra, concord almost absolutely (the variation not exceeding 1 mm) with the •dimensions of the dorsal vertebra, examined by me in V. marathonensis which circumstance would seem to prove equality of proportions. The morphological characters appear therefore to affirm an identity, although final elucidation in the matter could naturally only be afforded by comparison of the o r i g i n a 1 fossils, unless further remains of more abundant material belonging to one of these forms did not contain vertebra? of entirely corresponding p o s i t i o n, which would eventually permit a decisive opinion to be based on description and figures. It must be observed however that HOGERS photographs are nowise perfect enough to allow a closer examination of particular morphological features as is the case with several figures in DE STEFANO'S work for instance, which are not subject to the disturbing influence of imperfect placement and primitive retouche. Tf thus a conformity in morphological characters could be supposed, the question arises whether — considering the small number of remains at my disposal —- an identity of species may be established between the lower Miocene V. Hojmanni and t he P 1 i o c e n e - l'

i a e g 1 a c i a 1 (even Postglacial) V. marathonensis ? An important difference in age certainly exists between the Stätzling «Dinotheriensande», the Pikermi «Leichenfelder», the bone breccias from Csarnóta and the remain from the cave of the Arène Candide, and this circumstance, especially in the case of a vertebrate d-s p ecies, most decidedly needs due consideration with regard to its life -time, biology and development or rather transform at i o n, for — as V. marathonensis WEITH. from Pikermi and V. deserticola BY. from Csarnóta (and most probably the Arene Candideremain) being beyond doubt id e n 1 i c a 1 — the duration of this species would then extend just over two geological periods, from the Neogene (= younger Tertiary) to the beginning •of the Quarterly period. However taking for granted that later on,