300 ZAGLOSSUS. 



claws may have begmi later phylogenetically, for except the British museum 

 specimen having five claws on each foot, there is but a single case (M. C. Z. 7,009) 

 in which the fore claws are less in number than the hind. 



In normally clawed specimens, there are three phalanges in each of digits 

 2, 3, 4, but only two in digit 5, and one in digit 1. In the mounted skeleton 

 belonging to the United States national museum, in which there is a claw on 

 each digit 5, the latter has three phalanges, in each case. This extra phalanx 

 is the terminal or claw-bearing one, and is doubtless the one that is lost in the 

 nonnally clawed individuals. This is fui'ther indicated by Dubois (1881) who 

 found in one example, three phalanges on each hind digit 5, and two on each 

 hind digit 1 . In every case the terminal extra phalanx was small, bore no claw, 

 and evidently was a mere remnant of a once functional member. 



Gervais figures a palmar sesamoid, such as is so well developed in certain 

 edentates, but I found none in the specimen I dissected, which was probably 

 too young. 



The remaining bones of the feet and limbs are not essentially different from 

 those of the Echidna, except that the humerus differs conspicuously in its distal 

 outline. The internal tuberosity is broad and evenly rounded and has a com- 

 paratively shallow notch at the internal border of the articulating area. In 

 the Echidna on the other hand, the inner tuberosity is narrower and with a deep 

 notch in its distal margin below the entepic ondylar foramen. The notch at 

 the ental side of the articulating surface is also much deeper. It is in exactly 

 these points that the fossil humerus of Owen's Echidna ramsayi (Owen, 1884, 

 pi. 14) from New South Wales, Australia, agrees with the humerus of the Pro- 

 echidna and differs from that of the Echidna. For this reason, as well as on 

 account of its large size, I consider this extinct animal the representative of the 

 genus Zaglossus in Australia. Although it has become extinct on that conti- 

 nent, it seems apparent that the genus m its restricted sense, foraierly was repre- 

 sented there, and that through a land-bridge that has since disappeared, it 

 reached New Guinea at the same time with the true Echidnas {Tachyglossus 

 lawesi) and has there survived. With regard to the remains of this Austrahan 

 Proechidna but little has been pubUshed. Krefft (1868) in a brief note, first 

 announced the discovery of this extinct animal and figured the distal condyle 

 of the humerus. He says that he does not wish to name it lest it may have been 

 already described, but otherwise would call it Echidna owenii. Apparently 

 this name must hold good for the species. Owen (1884) described and figured 

 a nearly entire humerus, and later (1887) recorded that in the "Wellington bone 



