1866.] MR. ST. GEORGE MIVART ON MICRORHYNCHUS. 



153 



inch. 



wards of the articular surface of the condyle ; but the vertical groove 

 and eery deep digastric fossa are absolutely peculiar to the latter 

 genus. 



Dimensions. 



Length from anterior end of the praemaxilla to ante- 

 rior margin of foramen magnum 



Length from anterior end of the praemaxilla to most 



anterior point of orbital margin 0* 



Length between lines traversing most anterior and 



most posterior points of orbital margin 0" 



Length from last to posterior end of skull 



Extreme width between outer margins of orbits 



Extreme width behind posterior roots of zygomata. 



Width between nearest points of orbits 0" 



Width between temporal ridges just behind orbits. . 0" 

 Width between temporal ridges at junction with 



lambdoidal 0" 



Length of palate 0" 



Breadth of palate between first premolars - 



Breadth of palate at posterior end - 



Length of nasals 0* 



Breadth of nasals 0' 



Length of lower alveolar margin from front of first 



premolar to behind last molar 0" 



Length of symphysis 0" 



Height of condyle above alveolar margin - 



Height of coronoid process above alveolar margin . . 



75 



40 



60 

 03 

 53 

 13 

 43 

 90 



35 



81 

 40 

 40 

 35 

 25 



73 

 64 

 32 



48 



au 

 ils 

 us, 



After speaking of the skull, De Blainville says*: — "Quant 

 reste du squelette, je n'en ai vu qu'une partie des membres, et 

 conservent toutes les particularity de ceux des Indris ; l'humer 

 perce d'un trou au condyle interne, et egalant a. peine la moitie de 

 la longueur du femur ; le radius et le cubitus longs et greles ; le carpe 

 sans os intermediaire ; l'unciforme tres-grand ; mais ici le meta- 

 carpien de l'annulaire est notablement plus gros et plus long erne 

 celui du doigt median. Le femur et les os de la jambe, a peu pres 

 egaux, sont long et greles, surtout le perone, et les os du tarse sont 

 dans la proportion ordinaire." 



The few bones I have been able to examine are the following : — 



Humerus. — Not being able to ascertain the length of the spine I 

 cannot compare the humerus with it ; but it is doubtless of a similar 

 proportion to that of Indris, as it agrees with the humerus of the 

 latter animal in being so much shorter than the forearm. 



It has a strong sigmoid curve, stronger than in either Lemur or 

 Indris, and the supinator ridge is more developed than in either. 



As in Indris, the internal condyle does not descend so nearly down 

 to the free margin of the ulnar ridge of the trochlea as it does in 

 Lemur. 



As in both, the bony canal is distinct, but not so large as in either; 

 * Osttiographie, Lemur, p. 23. 



