The Kraai River vertebra referred to Euskelesaurus.

  • Harry Govier Seeley
Date:
1908
Catalogue details

Licence: In copyright

Credit: The Kraai River vertebra referred to Euskelesaurus. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by The Royal College of Surgeons of England. The original may be consulted at The Royal College of Surgeons of England.

    2/2
    333 Correspondence—Professor H. 0. Seeley. attention to the identity of one of its cervical vertebrae with the vertebra from tbe Kraai Kiver, and tbe label on tbe exhibited specimen, giving tbe name, was turned down at my request. My responsibility for reference of tbe specimen to Euskelesaurus ceased. There is no evidence for making tbe correction other than that in my possession and under description. Hence no publication seemed necessary in anticipation of final account of the animal. In his postscript Dr. Smith Woodward states that “Dr. R. Broom has described similar vertebrae fi’om the Upper Beaufort Beds of the Karoo Formation under the new generic name of Erythrosuchus.” This scarcely represents the facts. If my new unpublished skeleton is omitted, there is no evidence to connect the Kraai River vertebra with Dr, Broom’s types. Dr. Broom states that in Erythrosuchus “ there is one well-preserved vertebra, which is either lower cervical or upper dorsal,” compared to the dorsal vertebra of a carnivorous Dinosaur, and said to show that the rib was single-headed. On comparison of this vertebra (Ann. S. Afr. Mus., vol. v, pt. 4, figs. 8, 9) with the Kraai River fossil, it is difficult to recognise any near approximation. There is no room for doubt, for the Trustees of the South African Museum have given me, with the assistance of the Geological Depart- ment of the British Museum, the opportunity of studying Dr. Broom’s Erythrosuchus in the description of my own materials. Finally, the postscript remarks, “According to Dr. Broom’s description this reptile is not a Dinosaur, but exhibits many resemblances both to Belodonts and to Anomodonts.” Dr, Broom does not use the term Dinosauria, hut refers his animal to the Phytosauria, because the ilium is like that of Belodon, and the other bones are said to be somewhat like; but he exhibits caution in not speculating on the nature of the skull. In 1892 (Quart. Joum. Geol. Soc., vol. :S[viii, p. 189) I published the view that Belodon is a primitive Cetiosaurian, to he classed under the Saurischia. Therefore it makes little difference in my estimate of the wider ordinal affinities of the Kraai River fossil whether it is referred to the typical Saurischian Euskelesaurus or transferred to the sub- division Phytosauria and named Erythrosuchus. It is stated (Phil. Trans. Roy. Boc., 1892, pt. B, p. 346) that “ Saurischian Dinosaur reptiles alone among Reptilia approximate towards the Anomodont types in pelvic characters,” and I am not aware that these views have been elaborated by any subsequent writer, though I have repeatedly referred to the afldnities of the two groups (l.c., p. 366: 1895, pt. B, pp. 41, 112, etc.). H. G. Skelxt. Printed by Stephen Austin ^ Sons, Ltd., Hertford.
    No text description is available for this image
    No text description is available for this image