38 THE SAUROPOD DINOSAUR BAROSAURUS MARSH. 
owing to the faulty preservation of the Barosaurus bone. A number of good-sized 
fragments of the femoral shaft are present, but from lack of contacts they give no clue 
to the length of the bone. 
Tibia (Text Fig. 10). — The distal end of the right tibia is present, as are other 
fragments doubtless referable thereunto but not recognizable. The articular end is very 
rugose and deeply concave in the astragalar facet. The articular extremity is widely 
expanded, as compared with the shaft, although this appearance is heightened by the 
corrosion of the imier (median) side above the articular facet. What appears to be 
part of the proximal end of the tibia is also present, but affords no significant measure- 
ments. Those of the distal end follow: 
Measurements of the Tibia 
Barosaitrus Diplodocus 
lentus carnegiei Ratios 
mm. mm. 
Distal end, transverse diameter 380 212 1.787 
" " antero-posterior diameter 220 
" " circumference 980 
Length ( ?i68o.7) 940.5 1787 
Here again the tibial ratio is so very great that were it carried out in the length, 
that of Barosaurus would be about 5 feet 6 inches, or 13 feet 8j4 inches for the femur 
and tibia alone, exclusive of the foot. 
Fibula. — The two ends of the fibula are also present, and again the intervening 
bone is not preserved. The proximal portion has a very distinct muscle insertion on 
its anterior face. 
The distal end of the fibula is but a fragment, and is highly rugose on its articular 
end, as is the tibia. Available measurements are of little value, but indicate a ratio 
with those of Diplodocus approximating those of femur and tibia. 
BAROSAURUS AF FINIS 
Of the material found in the Barosaurus quarry, there are but three fossils, two 
foot bones and one tooth, which do not seem to pertain to the type specimen of 
B. lentus. It will be remembered that all of Marsh's description of the second species 
was contained in the single sentence, "With these fossils were found remains of a 
much smaller species which may be called Barosaurus affinis." There is absolutely no 
indication of what these remains were, nor are any of the bones labeled or otherwise 
distinguished as of another species. The tooth, which is that of a carnivorous dinosaur, 
can not belong to the species of sauropod under discussion, and this leaves only the 
two foot bones as possibly those to which Professor Marsh referred. 
These, which are metacarpals I and II of the left manus, are of the approximate 
size of those of Morosaurus grandis Marsh, type specimen No. 1905, Yale Museum. 
They are, on the other hand, much smaller than the equivalent bones of Diplodocus 
longus type, as the ratios in the table of measurements show. From these ratios it 
