570 PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM. vol. 48. 



It is proposed now to determine the length of some of the princi- 

 pal bones here referred provisionally to Equus laurentius relative 

 to the corresponding ones of the Arabian horse here measured. In 

 each case the bone of the latter horse is regarded as having the 

 value 100. 



Relative measurements of tones of Arabian horse and E. laurentius? 



Bones. 



Arabian. 



E. laurentius? 



100 



91.0 



100 



82.7 



100 



82.4 



100 



88.7 



100 



91.6 



100 



94.3 



100 



88.9 



100 



84.3 



100 



90.7 



100 



87.6 



Scapula 



Humerus 



Radius 



Metacarpal 



First phalange... 

 . Second phalange. 



Femur 



Tibia 



Metatarsal 3 



First phalange... 



From the above table it is seen that the larger bones of the hinder 

 limb of the supposed E. laurentius, the femur, tibia, and third meta- 

 tarsal, as compared with those of the Arabian horse, are longer than 

 the corresponding bones of the foreleg; and that the metatarsal is 

 most elongated of all. The distal bones, too, the metacarpal, meta- 

 tarsal, and first phalanges are seen to have relatively greater length 

 than the proximal bones. 



If the lengths of the various oones oi the fore limbs of the two 

 species be added together, omitting the scapula and ulna and includ- 

 ing 42 mm. for the length of the carpus of the Arabian and 37 mm. 

 for that of E. laurentius?, we shall have for the length of the foreleg 

 of the Arabian horse 1,110 mm.; for that of E. laurentius? 952 mm. 

 The latter is 85.7 per cent of the former. The height of the Arabian 

 horse is stated by its former owner, the late Mr. Homer Davenport, 

 to have been 14.2 hands. E. laurentius? was, therefore, probably 

 close to 12.6 hands high, or 4 feet 2J inches, or 1,284 mm. 



By allowing 86 mm. for the length of the tarsus of the Arabian 

 horse and 75 mm. for that of E. laurentius? there is obtained as the 

 partial length of the hinder leg of the former 1,275 mm. and for that 

 of the latter 1,130 mm. The latter forms 88.6 per cent of the former. 

 This indicates that the ratio of the length of the hind leg of E. 

 laurentius? to that of the Arabian horse was greater than in the 

 case of the foreleg. 



In the Arabian horse the length of the foreleg is equal to 87 per 

 cent of the length of the hind leg; in E. laurentius? the correspond- 

 ing ratio drops to 84.2. 



It can not be doubted that the owner of the two limbs here pro- 

 visionally associated with E. laurentius was a horse considerably 

 smaller than the Arabian with which it is here compared, himself 



