ON THE WOLF OF NIPPON. 11 
tibia; but, as a rule, the fore arm—i.e. the radius and ulna, 
measured together—is generally longer than the tibia, and the 
variations are by no means so important as von Schrenck 
considered them. 
The following table will justify the facts stated. The 
measurements were taken from disarticulated skeletons in our 
collection, in order to get the exact measure of each bone from 
one extreme end of the joint to the other. 
The measurements are given in milli- | are ee Basilar 
Miesred.- Ulna. | Radius.} Tibia. ey orn 
Canis lupus, 6, adult, Lorraine ...; 249 212, 228 217 
5 bs Gy 5, urkey. <<<} 1/256 a7 230 213 
a ‘3 3, ,, Finland ...| 252 913 | 231 | 212 
- - Oi ose CalliGia; eect! oul! 196 | 216 215 
h. 3 Q, juv., Gov. Kaluga) 227 193 212 197 
»,  pallipes, 3S, adult, India lO 185 | 198] 190 
,, hodophylaz, »  jfideTemm.| 202°5* ?| 176 | (185 ?)+ 
» dingo, ay > Australia...) 177 148 | 166 166 
5,  latrans,! Ga. Hss5 s Moxico® -..:.|| 2182 158 | 176 | 162 
The conclusion to be drawn from the foregoing table, which, 
without difficulty, might have been increased fivefold, is that in 
wolves and wolf-like Canidae, the tibia is always longer than the 
radius, { but the ulna, which is very nearly the length of the fore 
arm, always happens to be longer than the tibia. It appears 
evident that Temminck, in his account of the length of the 
*avant-bras,” measured the ulna and radius, adding by some 
mistake the words ow le radius to the “ avant-bras,” instead of 
naming either both bones of the fore arm, or the ulna by itself. 
_ Assuming this to be the case, we have a normal proportion 
between the fore part of the arm and the fore part of the 
leg, in the case of the European Wolf examined by him, 
consequently we may accept the measurements given of the 
Japanese Wolf without hesitation. Yet the ulna (avant.bras) 
appears to be somewhat long in comparison with the tibia; 
* Properly speaking, this is the length of ulna and radius, which alters 
very little. 
+ Interrogatively added for the skull in question. 
{ Compare the notes of L. v. Schrenck. 
