QUATERNARY FAUNA OF GIBRALTAR. 99 
of importance, were it not explained by the circumstance that the lower end of the 
Ilford radius is diseased, presenting numerous large vascular openings and a general 
spongy condition, evidently due to what in surgical pathology would be termed chronic 
osteitis. This diseased condition is strongly manifested also in the radio-ulnar aiti- 
cular surface; and it is a curious circumstance that Sir Antonio Brady’s collection of 
rhiuocerine remains from the Ilford brickfields contains a right and a left tibia in 
precisely the same mineral condition, and corresponding in proportional size with the 
radius, one of which tibiz is very extensively diseased at the distal end, exhibiting the 
consequences of chronic osteitis in a very advanced stage, being much enlarged and 
extremely spongy, whilst its fellow presents a similar disease at a less advanced degree. 
But even in this bone the affection has advanced further than in the radius. It may 
therefore be fairly concluded that all these bones in the Ilford collection belonged to 
one and the same individual, and therefore that the enlarged condition of the distal 
extremity of the radius is abnormal. The shaft of the Gibraltar radius, besides its 
being a little slenderer than that of the other, is rather more curved in front, and the 
groove for the extensor tendons at the lower end is deeper and more pronounced than 
in the Ilford specimen. It is, however, well shown in the latter; and its depth is 
apparently diminished merely in consequence of the diseased condition of that end of 
the bone. 
Now, as this extensor groove appears to be one of the most distinctive characteristics 
of the radius of R. hemitechus, as compared with that of any other species, recent or 
fossil, with which I have had an opportunity of contrasting it, its existence and depth 
in the Gibraltar specimen appear to afford strong evidence in favour of that specimen 
belonging to the same species. On the dorsal aspect of the two bones I am unable to 
perceive any difference worthy of note, beyond the fact that all the muscular impressions 
are more strongly marked in the Ilford specimen. But this is a question of age or 
development; and in all other respects the bones appear to be identical. 
The os lunare (Pl. XV. figs. 4-8) is absolutely perfect. In mineral condition it is 
extremely dense and heavy, and highly infiltrated with manganesic oxide. The only 
fossil bones with which I have been able to compare it are a right and left from Grays, 
Nos. 22038 and 22038 6, in the British Museum, and belonging in all probability to 
the same individual. These bones are considerably larger than the Gibraltar specimen, 
measuring :— 
Grays. Gibraltar. 
Mm. in. 
Length 2°95 2°6 
Width . ph Pee 2°35 Teg 
Antero-posterior diameter 2:3 2:1 
The scaphoid facet (a, fig. 4) in the Gibraltar bone is 1”8 long, and in that from 
Grays 2-12; and the facet (qa, fig. 6), which is triangular in the Gibraltar, is circular 
