488 DR. C. I. rOKSTTH MAJOE OX 



In comparing the characters of the common Hare (i. europcens) with those of the 

 domesticated Rahhit, Nathusius enters into full particulars of the differences presented 

 by the antehvachium, summing them up in the following statements : — 



Hare. Rabbit. 



Ulna weaker than the radius, situated Uhia stronger than the radius, situated 



behind the latter. laterally. 



In relation to the basilar length of the skull and the length of the vertebral column, 

 the anterior and posterior limbs are in their totality, as well as in their different parts, 

 longer in the Hare, shorter in the Rabbit. 



Hare. Rabbit. 



Humerus longer than antebrachium. Humerus and antebrachium suhcqual in length. 



Length of the antebrachium as compared with the tibia : — 



Hare. Rabbit. 



Antebrachium shorter than the tibia by Antebrachium shorter than the tibia by one- 



about one-fourth its length. half its length*. 



With regard to the remarkable differences in the antebrachium of tlie two animals, 

 the writer concludes that they are doubtless associated with their different habits, 

 the Rabbit burrowing and the Hare living above-ground f . Put in this general way, 

 the conclusion is undoubtedly true. Nathusius, however, does not seem to have been 

 aware that the difference is chielly due to the specialization of the Hares fore-leg, which 

 specialization is nothing else than the beginning of the process carried much fuiiher in 

 the modern swift-footed Ungulates. It therefore remains to be seen how far, if at 

 all, the structure of the Rabbit's antebrachium is a consequence of its burrowing 

 propensities, — an adaptation to them. Eor neither from what we know of its habits, nor 

 from the structiu'e of its fore-limb, can the Rabbit be considered to be a truly fossorial 

 Mammal, as is, e. g., the Mole, or, among Rodcntia, the genera Geomys, Spalax, and 

 Siphneus. 



In districts where the Rabbit finds burrowing in the ground too hard a task, it 

 manages to do withou.t it J ; as it sometimes does, perhaps, for other unknown reasons. 



* H. V. Nathusius, ' Ubur die sogenauuten Lejjorick'U,' pp. 17, .31-33, 67, figs. 2-5 (p. 32) 1876. 



t Oj). i:it. p. 33. 



X W. Thompson states (Proc. Zool. See. Londoii, part v. p. 52, 1837) that in the North of Ireland persons who 

 take Rabbits make a distinction between the Burrow -Eahhit and the Bush-Jiahlit, and that the latter is so designated 

 in consequence of haviug a " form like the Hare, and which is generally placed in bushes or underwood." The 

 liev. G. T. Dawson, speaking of the Wild Rabbit, says :■ — " There is a variety . . . which never burrows in the ground, 

 but lies beneath bushes, or among the herbage ot hedges or woods, and is called by the common peoi)le of that part 

 of Hertfordshire which borders upon Redfordshire the B%(sh-ltahhit, and in the northern parts of the same county 

 the Stuh-Eahhit .... A non-burrowing Rabbit may, in its distress, scramble into a hole, or burrow, if there happens to 

 1)0 one in its waj', in which to die in secrecy ; but, as far as my own observation extends, I never remember one 



