some Ungual Phalanr/es. 



317 



. . . evidently those of Phalangers," and one (PI. XVIII. 

 fig. 5) is Owen's r l hylacoleo "ungual phalangeal" (his fig. 13) 

 and Lydekker's Thylacoleo " ungual phalangeal/' By the 

 same method of elimination as observed in the case of Type 1, 

 I reduce consideration in this instance to the PhalangeridaB 

 alone. There is no greater degree of variation between 

 Types 1 and 2 than there is in the forms of the terminals 

 of the same foot of many species of Phalangeridse. I, there- 

 fore, again support Krefft's views of the affinity of these 

 bones, but to "what genus of the family the animal possessing 

 them was most nearly allied only time can prove. For my 

 own part I am rather in favour of a gigantic Koala. 



The following table explains the relative identity of the 

 various figures referred to : — 



In these notes I have sought to show that : — 



1. Owen figured as the possible ungual phalanges of 

 Thylacoleo two entirely distinct nail-bones — a "hooded" 

 form, and an unhooded or unsheathed one; both cannot 

 belong to the same kind of animal. 



2. If the hooded bone be accepted for the time being as 

 of Thylacoleo, then the bone catalogued as " cast of an ungual 

 phalangeal " by Lydekker cannot possibly be so. 



3. The non-sheathed terminals (Types 1 and 2) were never 

 claimed by Krefft as appertaining either to his Mylodon 

 australis, or to Thylacoleo. 



4. Thylacoleo is regarded by the advocates of its herbi- 

 vorous nature as a member of the Phalangeridse. If it be 

 so, then the phalanges of Types 1 and 2 may, perhaps, be 

 those of it. 



5. If the suggestion contained in the last paragraph should 



* This is the original of the replica called by Lydekker Thylacoleo 

 (A.M. 13320, B.M. 1520 (36)). 



