262 NATURAL SCIENCE. April, 



drawn carefully from the actual fossil, would seem to point otherwise. 

 Surely the bone marked Cp. should be regarded, not as the radiale, but 

 as representing more or fewer of the distal carpals fused into one mass, 

 as in living birds. A fine suture line shows that this must have fitted 

 very closely to the metacarpals I and II, if, indeed, it was not actually 

 anchylosed with them. The facts that this bone is strictly confined 

 to the bases of metacarpals I and II, and that metacarpal III was 

 not produced backwards to the level of the bases of I and II, suggest 

 that an additional and separate carpal was present, serving for the 

 articulation of digit III. That there is a stage in the development of 

 the carpus in modern birds (3) precisely agreeing with this permanent 

 condition in Archeopteryx, seems to be a point in favour of this 

 interpretation. 



Of the five digits which, it is contended, composed the manus 

 of Archaopteryx, nos. I, II, and III are supposed to be represented in 

 the Berlin fossil, and nos. IV and V in the London one. The 

 proximal halves (of D. IV, V) are said to have had " ridges which, 

 when the two were fitted together, would have prevented their move- 

 ment one on the other." I claim to have shown previously, that the 

 bones in question were almost certainly parts of II and III ; a further 

 examination suggests that these fragments are encrusted with calcium 

 carbonate, causing these "ridges," which are, in reality, nothing more 

 than striations. 



It has been held that the position of these bones "with reference 

 to the feathers of the wing, in spite of the dislocation of other 

 bones, is just that of the large metacarpals in an ordinary bird's wing; 

 and the fact that these feathers are still in their normal position in 

 this wing (the left) justifies the belief that when the animal finally 

 settled down, . . . those feathers were still bound to those metacarpals 

 by ligament." Now, I do not doubt for one moment that if these two 

 bones are metacarpals, they supported those feathers; but to claim 

 for the London fossil that these feathers are still in their normal 

 position strikes one as a stretch of the imagination. 



The London fossil has been held by Dr. Hurst to afford the 

 strongest support to his hypothesis. But the stoutness of the two 

 metacarpals may be due to the incrustation of calcite. Furthermore, 

 seeing that the London fossil is, as Dr. Hurst clearly showed, that of a 

 larger bird than the Berlin example — and, therefore, possibly of a 

 different species — there seems to be no reason why the two should, of 

 necessity, agree in detail, or even represent a precisely similar stage 

 of development as regards the skeleton of the wing. 



The phalanges of the three digits of the Berlin fossil are stated 

 to have been furnished with tubercles for the insertion of the flexor 

 muscles. This showed that these digits were " used to grasp parts of 

 trees," which they could not have done had they borne long quill- 

 feathers. Though I looked carefully for these tubercles I could only 

 satisfy myself of the existence of anything like a tubercle in the case 



