264 DR. E. CRISP ON THE BACTRIAN CAMEL. [ Mar. 14, 
longitudinal ridges, as in the Giraffe; but these were of small size 
and not so well defined. 
Skeleton.—The skeleton of the Bactrian Camel, so-called, is de- 
scribed by Professor Owen in the Museum Catalogue of the College 
of Surgeons ; and I need not occupy much time in noticing this part 
of the structure of the animal, although there are some points, I 
think, of great interest connected with it. I have carefully examined 
two skeletons of the Camel—one a Bactrian, at the British Museum, 
and the skeleton above alluded to, at the College of Surgeons ; and, 
although they are said to be of the same species, I find a great dif- 
ference in the length of many of the bones, but there is no important 
difference in the form: the skeletons are both those of old animals. 
In the British Museum specimen I find the united length of the 
spinous processes of the dorsal vertebrze to be 110 inches, while those 
of the College specimen are only 92 inches; and so with the bones of 
the extremities. These differences in the length of the bones may 
arise from a difference of sex only, as I believe the skeleton at the 
College of Surgeons is that of a female. I took drawings and mea- 
surements of the bones of both the skeletons I have named, believ- 
ing, at the time, that one we. a Bactrian Camel and the other a 
Dromedary (the one-humped); but. it is probable that these are both 
the skeletons of the former animal. Professor De Blainville, in his 
‘ Ostéographie,’ p. 76, says, after examining the skeletons of the two 
species, ‘‘ Quant aux autres parties du squelette, il m’a été impossible 
d’y trouver la moindre particuliarité différentielle autre que celles qui 
peuvent étre considérées comme individuelles, et que liconographie 
la plus rigoureuse pourrait 4 peine signaler”’ (p. 86). 
Mr. Flower tells me that he has seen the two skeletons together 
at Leyden, and that he observed a marked difference in the spinal 
column. It will be interesting hereafter to have this matter more 
definitely settled. De Blainville’s comparison was made between 
one skeleton of the Dromedary and five of the Camel. 
The deviations in the skeletons of the Camelide from the rumi- 
nant type, such as the three canine-like teeth in each jaw, the want 
of perforation of the transverse processes of the cervical vertebree for 
the vertebral artery, the form of the spine of the scapula, the pecu- 
liarities in some of the tarsal and carpal bones, and the more flattened 
form of the feet, have been pointed out in the Hunterian Catalogue, 
and by various writers on the subject ; but there are some peculiarities 
in the skeleton of this animal that have not, I think, received sufii- 
cient notice. In my examination of the bones of the male Bactrian 
Camel at the British Museum, I was struck especially with their 
great weight and solidity; and I believe, judging from the exami- 
nation of the bones of nearly all our well-known large quadrupeds, 
that there is no animal with bones so weighty in proportion to their 
bulk as those of the Camel. I find that the skull of the Ox is 
much larger than that of the Camel, but the skull of the Camel is 
the heavier of the two; and the same remark applies to the Horse’s 
skull, where, taking proportion into account, the weight of the Camel’s 
skull greatly preponderates. In two Camels’ skulls that I weighed, 
