“Probably when ‘standing at ease’ not less than ten feet in height, and of a bulk in proportion, this creature was unmatched in magnitude and physical strength by any of the largest inhabitants of the Mesozoic land or sea.  Did it live in the sea, in fresh waters, or on the land?  This question cannot be answered, as in the case of Ichthyosaurus, by appeal to the accompanying organic remains; for some of the bones lie in marine deposits, others in situations marked by estuarine conditions, and, out of the Oxfordshire district, in Sussex, in fluviatile accumulations.  Was it fitted to live exclusively in water?  Such an idea was at one time entertained, in consequence of the biconcave character of the caudal vertebrae, and it is often suggested by the mere magnitude of the creature, which would seem to have an easier life while floating in water, than when painfully lifting its huge bulk, and moving with slow steps along the ground.  But neither of these arguments is valid.  The ancient earth was trodden by larger quadrupeds than our elephant; and the biconcave character of vertebrae, which is not uniform along the column in Cetiosaurus, is perhaps as much a character of a geological period as of a mechanical function of life.  Good evidence of continual life in water is yielded in the case of Ichthyosaurus and other Enaliosaurs, by the articulating surfaces of their limb-bones, for these, all of them, to the last phalanx, have that slight and indefinite adjustment of the bones, with much intervening cartilage, which fits the leg to be both a flexible and forcible instrument of natation, much superior to the ordinary oar-blade of the boatman.  On the contrary, in Cetiosaur, as well as in Megalosaur and Iguanodon, all the articulations are definite, and made so as to correspond to determinate movements in particular directions, and these are such as to be suited for walking.  In particular, the femur, by its head projecting freely from the acetabulum, seems to claim a movement of free stepping more parallel to the line of the body, and more approaching to the vertical than the sprawling gait of the crocodile.  The large claws concur in this indication of terrestrial habits.  But, on the other hand, these characters are not contrary to the belief that the animal may have been amphibious; and the great vertical height of the anterior part of the tail seems to support this explanation, but it does not go further....  We have therefore a marsh-loving or river-side animal, dwelling amidst filicine, cycadaceous, and coniferous shrubs and trees full of insects and small mammalia.  What was its usual diet?  If ex ungue leonem, surely ex dente cibum.  We have indeed but one tooth, and that small and incomplete.  It resembles more the tooth of Iguanodon than that of any other reptile; for this reason it seems probable that the animal was nourished by similar vegetable food which abounded in the vicinity, and was not obliged to contend with Megalosaurus for a scanty supply of more stimulating diet.”