104 MR. G. BUSK ON THE ANCIENT OR 












et er a Se 38 
. | 3 = 2 28 A saps 
Dimensions of astragalus in Rhinoceros. 3 i a bs Be | bits Org Go 3 = 2s 
B ot ea|-o 4 als 2 a2 ag 
5 33/38 |a3h| 28 as ae 
fi SSPE i] 02 Bio SBE viene 23 Se 
a oO a i oO &S a 
| | A | A a e = 4 5 
PGnueitrmon ts Soacnobe S7c2 or bel tace 3:20 | 2-70 | 3:10] 2°30 |3:1x 2-1 |2:5x1°6 |2:7x1-6 
Sy INO waste bosersecrsg enon macvseete toes 8:20 | 2°65 | 3:15 | 2:37 SelZpil reli sin (er perei lors 
| R. hemitechus, Ilford, No. 22010, B.M. ..| 3:20 | 2°50 | 3:00 | 2:37 x 2:3 x16 Sali 
5 3 No: 20815, BoM... arepes 3:20 a 3°30 Be xX2°35) x17 
5, megarhinus, Grays, No. 21617, B.M. ..) 3°65 | 2-9 3°60 | 3-00 x25 x19 |3:-4~x 2-6 
fey Fs IN OM2DDT Ss ee ere tsterte eer 3°50 oe 3:50 oF x 2:5 x17 |3:3x21 
jy CLT UCSCUS ES MU tc eu cdedaus, sieychswezsdeiersiene cede | 2-95 ace 2-90 Soe |) S620) x15 |2°8x 1-7 
Hen sp Madara we pccucsscucccunenerenttaee | 3°00} 25 | 3.00) 225) x20 x16 | 26x 
5, tichorhinus, Brixham collection ...... 2-900) 2p alieask 2:5 |2:9x 2-0 Page: welll eye gales) 
ps OLCOTTICS) ((FuayICETULO@ he ler-iotet nayaite = eeateleye 2-70 | 2:5 3°15 | 2:5 |2-7x2-2 |2-5 x 1-65} 2-8 x 1:8 
a 8 Saffron Waldrone can oem 2-70 31 eae wee | 2919 




The mere inspection of the figures in these columns will show how very closely the 
Gibraltar bones correspond in size and proportions with that of R. hemitechus, or the 
smaller of the Thames-valley species, and at the same time how widely in the main 
they differ from any other of the species noticed. Had all the other characters been 
equally in accordance, there would have been no occasion for any further comparison ; 
but since, notwithstanding the remarkable resemblance in dimensions, the Gibraltar 
astragalus offers some characters by which it would appear to differ not inconsiderably 
from either R. hemitechus or R. megarhinus (the only two with which it is at all worth 
while to bring it into comparison), it will be necessary to add a few remarks. The 
astragalus of R. megarhinus, besides its much larger size, is distinguished from that 
of R. hemitechus (from the Thames valley) by several peculiarities. 
1. The anterior or scapho-cuboid facet is more convex, and the proportional widths 
transversely of the scaphoid and the cuboid segments different, the former being to the 
latter as 1000 to -405, whilst in R. hemitechus the proportion is as 1-000 to *437. 
2. In R. megarhinus the outer calcaneal facet extends, with an even outline, quite to 
the posterior and outer edge of the bone, whilst in R. hemitwchus the posterior border 
of the facet is sinuous, a rough surface for the attachment of a strong ligament being 
left, between the margin of the facet and the postero-external border. 
3. In the astragalus of R. megarhinus the outer ridge of the trochlea is more rounded 
or thicker than in R. hemitochus. 
4. In R. hemitechus the crescentic internal malleolar facet is continued close up to 
the anterior border of the bone; and there is little or no constriction between its 
anterior termination and the scaphoid facet, whilst in R. megarhinus the crescentic 
facet terminates at a distance of nearly an inch behind the border of the bone; and, 
corresponding with this, the upper arched border of the facet measured along the are 
