302 



Canis familiaris 12, 12, 22, 23.5 mm. (C. R.) 



Sciurus vulgaris 12, 30 mm. (C. K.) 



Mus deciimanus 1 1.5, 12, 13, 13, 13.2, 14.5, 16, 18, 20, 22 mm. (C. R.) 



Lepus cnniciiliis 17, 20 mm. (C. R.) 



Spermopliillus cililliis 15 mm. (C. R.) 



Rousettns amplexicaudatus 7.5, 10.5, 11, 11, 11.5, 12, 12, 14.5, 

 15,5, 16, 18 mm. (C. R.) 



Talpa eiiropea 8.5, 9, 9, 10, 12, 13, 16.5, 20 mm. (C. R). 



Perameles obesula 50 mm. (C R.) 



Perameles spec. 38 mm. (C. R.) 



Dasyurus viveirimis 19.6, 33, 36, 40, 53, 63 mm. (C'. R.) 



Smiiitliopsis crassicaudatus 13, 25 irim. (C. R.) 



Pliascalogale pennicillata 37 mm. (C. R.) 



Tiicliosnnis vulpeeula 32 mm. (C. R.) 



Didelphjs canerivora, 4 emtiryos of 25 mm. length. 



Laeeita agilis N. T. (Keibel) 117, 118, 120. 123, 123, 124, 

 125, 126. 



Calotes iubatns, length of the head 5'/, mm., 7 mm. 



Lagjsoma 27.5 mm. 



Hemidactylus fren. length of the head 4.5 mm. 



Salamandra mac. 11, 13, 15, 16, 16, 24 mm. 



Pipa Americana, 12 mm. 



Rana . 2 embrvos. 



So far as I am able to judge furamina in adult shoiilder-tilades 

 occur only with Homo and with various Edentata, in which they 

 are always formed by bridging of the Iiu-isura scapulae, and with 

 Delphinus delphis. In the latter the character of the foramen is not 

 known. Rutherfohd (I.e.) has described it. 



A conceivable connection, that might exist between the praesca- 

 pnla of Rutherford and the attachment of the clavicula (not only 

 the sternal half of the clavicula, as Rutherford supposed) to the 

 margo superior scapulae, as it occurs in reptiles, echidna and orni- 

 thorynchus, could not be ascertained, since a connection of the 

 praescapula of Rutherford to the acromial part of the clavicula 

 could not be detected either. 



It appears, then, that the foramen, present in the majority of 

 human embryos in the cranial part of the shoulder-blade, does not 

 occur in other vertebrates, (excejit in Delphinus delphis, which, 

 however, is of such a pronounced specificity that this foramen cannot 

 be looked upon as a homologue of that of man). Neither did I find 

 any attachment of the praescapula of Rutherford to any other 



