74 



DR. H. P. STANDING ON SUBFOSSIL 



Table 1.— Showing comparative dimensions of mandible oi Palmpropithecus ingeiis 



and P. maximus. 



P. incfens. P. maximws. 



From the condyle to the summit of the symphysis 



Length of series of molars and premolars 



From condyle to posterior edge of third molar . . . 



Length of symphysis 



Width between second premolars and first molars . 

 Width between anterior margins of first i^remolars 



Width of series of incisors at base 



Maximum length of first premolar 



„ width „ ,, . • .- 



., length of second premolar 



„ width ,, „ . ■ • - • 



„ length of first molar 



,, width ,, ,, 



,, length of second molar 



„ width ,, „ 



„ length of third molar 



width „ „ 



mm. 

 130 

 7fr5 

 55 

 58 

 26 

 14 

 13 

 14 



6 

 15 



7-5 

 16-8 



9 

 16 



8 

 13-5 



8 



mm. 

 166 



88 



65 



86 



36 



25 



23 



17-5 

 6-5 



17-4 

 8-8 



17-6 



11-5 



16-8 



10-7 



14 

 9-4 



Descrijption of the Skull of Palseopropithecus maximus. 



The skull of Palceo'propithecus in its general features conforms to the type of the 

 Indrisinee, though curiously departing from that type in certain particulars. It is 

 broad and flattened, with depressed brain-case and narrow postorbital frontal region. 

 The facial portion is short, herein contrasting strongly with Megaladapis. The occiput 

 is vertical ; the zygomatic arcade high and widely curved away from the brain-case. 

 The orbits are small and extraordinarily elevated in position and upwardly directed. 

 The nasals at their anterior margins are turned upwards and form a suture with a 

 curious shell-like upward prolongation of the premaxilla. The dentition resembles 

 in o-eneral that of Propithecus, though in detail presenting many deviations from the 

 type of the recent Indrisinge. The entire absence of auditory bullae is the most 

 marked peculiarity to be observed in the base of the skull (see Plate X.). 



On attempting to give detailed measurements of the skull one is impressed with the 

 oreat variety both in absolute size and in the proportion of the various parts presented 

 by diS'erent specimens. Among the earliest examples obtained at Ampasambazimba 

 were two showing such differences in outline and proportions that I referred them to 

 two distinct species. In view of the complete series of more than a dozen skulls 



