588 



PROF. F. WOOD JONES ON THE 



established to make their relation to the living rats of the 

 island clear. 



In the next place, upon another island (Goat Island) in the 

 same Archipelago the tracks of a rat were seen upon the sea- 

 beaches, but despite every effort no rat could be caught or shot or 

 even seen dui-ing a brief visit to the island. Nevertheless the 

 fact that the tracks were in reality those of rats was proved by 

 the finding of skull fragments in the dejecta of some birds of prey. 

 These fragments were all of lower jaws and lacked teeth (see 

 text-ftg. 1). Save for a single humerus no other portion of the 

 rats was I'ecovered. It was a matter of some interest to see if 

 the rat of Goat Island, and the living rat of Franklin Island, and 

 the dead rat of Franklin Island were or were not identical. 



Text-fiefure 1. 



Fragment of left lower jaw taken from the pellets of birds of prey on Goat Island^ 

 Nuyt's Archipelago. The edentulous alveolus has a characteristic root-pattern. 



Still more recently the author was confronted with the remains 

 of so many rats that the deposit formed by their bones constituted 

 so vast a bulk as to be exploited as a commercial undertaking, 

 though situated some 40 miles from the i\ailroad and some 

 200 miles from the place to which the deposit could be sent by 

 rail. These bones were in a system of caves (Buckalowie), and 

 among the millions of rats which had gone to the formation of 

 the deposit not one seems to be represented by a whole skull.. 

 Jaws and fragments of jaws devoid of teeth were to be had by 

 the thousand (see text-fig. 2), and at once the question arose — 

 Could the fragments be identified by an examination of the jaws 

 from which the teeth had been lost ? Whatever the rats were,. 



