68 MR. A. L. ADAMS ON THE OSTEOLOGY OF 
but the contour of the posterior border (4), instead of (as in fig. 10, the Mammoth, 
and African) forming a hog’s back, has a hollow at ¢, and the margin is much thinner. 
Again, like the Asiatic, there is a flattening at @, which is round in the others; and the 
lunare facets (//) are larger in proportion than in fig. 10. But in the lower border 
being rounded and the facets covering the side of an eminence in the form of a triangle 
(¢), as in the recent species and in the Mammoth, with a decided determinable facet 
for the trapezoid and magnum, we obtain features which at once distinguish this 
scaphoid from fig. 10. The following are the dimensions of the woodcut—entire 
length 2°8 inches, extreme breadth 2°4, radial facet 1:3 by 0°8, aspects for trapezoid 
and magnum (by tape) 2:2 by 1:4, upper lunare facet 0°8 by 0:5, lower lunare facet 
0-9 by 0°9. 
The relative dimensions of this scaphoid as compared with recent species would 
show an animal a little over 5 feet in height; the specimen being somewhat larger 
than that of 707h/ (British Museum) just referred to. 
Lunare.—This bone is represented in my collections by fowr entire specimens, which 
differ in size and characters as follows :— 
1. The largest (Pl. XVIII. fig. 1) is equal in size to that of the Sumatran Elephant 
(British Museum). Its dimensions are—maximum length 3:8 inches, breadth 3:3, 
thickness 2, radial facet 2-5 by 2°5, ulnar 1:4 by 0°7, cuneiform facet 1-6 by 0°5, upper 
cuneiform facet 1:2 by 0:2. The scaphoidals are abraded; the magnal is 2-7 by 2°6 
inches. 
2. Another (B), somewhat smaller, of the right foot, from Benghisa Gap, has its 
length 3-6 inches, breadth 2:9, thickness 1:7, radial facet 2:4, ulnar 1 by 1, cuneiform 
(abraded), scaphoidal (upper) 1:4 by 0:4, lower 0:8 by 0:3, magnal 2-7 by 2°6. 
Although these two lunaria are closely allied, as regards size and in proportion they 
might have fairly appertained to the two scaphoids just described, inasmuch as each 
pair were found close together in two separate localities; indeed, moreover, as the sca- 
phoids differ, so do the former to some extent. ‘[hus fig. 1 differs from B in its ulnar 
facet being more perpendicular, the radial and magnal surfaces are not so concave, 
the latter surface is also narrower. Fig. 1 has consequently an African’s character, 
whilst B is decidedly more like the same bone in the Mammoth and Asiatic. I doubt, 
however, if these discrepancies are altogether maintainable throughout a series of each ; 
and therefore, although noteworthy, they are to be considered merely provisional ; it is 
strange, however, that two lunaria so nearly of the same dimensions should differ in 
characters to the extent observable in the two Maltese bones just described. 
3. The next lunare (represented, Pl. XVIII. fig. 4) is very like the last described, 
but it is much smaller, and bears a very close relationship in this respect to the distal 
ends of the radius and ulna Pl. XIII. figs. 2 & 3, not only in size, but in the con- 
figuration of their articular surfaces, just as the less shallow and less convex radial 
aspects of Pl. XVIII. fig. 1 consort with the opposing surfaces of radius Pl. X. fig. 6. 
