300 ZAGLOSSUS. 
claws may have begun later phylogenetically, for except the British museum 
specimen having five claws on each foot, there is but a single case (M. C. Z. 7,009) 
in which the fore claws are less in number than the hind. 
In normally clawed specimens, there are three phalanges in each of digits 
2, 3, 4, but only two in digit 5, and one in digit 1. In the mounted skeleton 
belonging to the United States national museum, in which there is a claw on 
each digit 5, the latter has three phalanges, in each case. This extra phalanx 
is the terminal or claw-bearing one, and is doubtless the one that is lost in the 
normally clawed individuals. This is further indicated by Dubois (1881) who 
found in one example, three phalanges on each hind digit 5, and two on each 
hind digit 1. In every case the terminal extra phalanx was small, bore no claw, 
and evidently was a mere remnant of a once functional member. 
Gervais figures a palmar sesamoid, such as is so well developed in certain 
edentates, but I found none in the specimen I dissected, which was probably 
too young. 
The remaining bones of the feet and limbs are not essentially different from 
those of the Echidna, except that the humerus differs conspicuously in its distal 
outline. The internal tuberosity is broad and evenly rounded and has a com- 
paratively shallow notch at the internal border of the articulating area. In 
the Echidna on the other hand, the inner tuberosity is narrower and with a deep 
notch in its distal margin below the entepicondylar foramen. The notch at 
the ental side of the articulating surface is also much deeper. It is in exactly 
these points that the fossil humerus of Owen’s Echidna ramsayi (Owen, 1884, 
pl. 14) from New South Wales, Australia, agrees with the humerus of the Pro- 
echidna and differs from that of the Echidna. For this reason, as well as on 
account of its large size, I consider this extinct animal the representative of the 
genus Zaglossus in Australia. Although it has become extinct on that conti- 
nent, it seems apparent that the genus in its restricted sense, formerly was repre- 
sented there, and that through a land-bridge that has since disappeared, it 
reached New Guinea at the same time with the true Echidnas (Yachyglossus 
lawesi) and has there survived. With regard to the remains of this Australian 
Proechidna but little has been published. Krefft (1868) in a brief note, first 
announced the discovery of this extinct animal and figured the distal condyle 
of the humerus. He says that he does not wish to name it lest it may have been 
already described, but otherwise would call it Echidna owenti. Apparently 
this name must hold good for the species. Owen (1884) described and figured 
a nearly entire humerus, and later (1887) recorded that in the ‘“‘ Wellington bone 
