130 



DE. H. P. STANDING ON SUBFOSSIL 



Arclmolenmr may be said to iiossess features intermediate between Lemur and 

 Propithecus. If, indeed, a robust specimen of the humerus of L. julhji or L. majori 

 be compared with those of Archceole?nur, the general agreement of the two bones is 

 unmistakable (see text-fig. 32) ; there are at the same time certain features which 

 show a distinct affinity with the Indrisine type of humerus. These become more 

 apparent if the more slender bone which we have provisionally referred above to 

 Archceolemur majori be compared with that marked 15 in the table. This latter is 

 apparently the humerus of Mesoprointhecus, and a brief description of it will now be 

 given (text-fig. 33). 



MesopropUhecus. — This bone is somewhat longer and considerably more robust than 

 the humerus of Propithecus. Its upper portion is more flexed than the latter bone, 



Text-fiff. 32. 



Text-fig. 33. 



Humeri of (A) Arclueolemiir edwardsi 

 and (B) Lemur julhji, compared. 



Humerus of 

 Mesopropithecus pitliecoides. 



being intermediate in this respect between the modern Lemur and Propithecus. The 

 head is more spherical {i. e., less ovoid in form) than is the case with either of the 

 extant subfamilies. The shape and position of the greater tuberosity more nearly 

 resembles that of Archceolemur and Propithecus than that of Ljemur, while the lesser 

 tuberosity is intermediate between Archceolemur and Propithecus, the groove which 

 separates this tuberosity from the head of the humerus being less marked than in the 

 extant genus, though more prominent than in either Arcliceolemur or the Lemurs, 

 whether recent or subfossil. 



The " deltoid " crest bears much resemblance to that of the slender humerus of 

 Archceolemur referred to above, the roughened surface for muscular attachment 



