66 NEW YORK STATE MUSEUM 



These remains were briefly described by Smallwood 1 in 1903. 

 They comprise two large humeri each accompanied by its corre- 

 sponding radius and ulna, two small humeri, one metacarpus, six 

 ribs, one lumbar vertebra, one thoracic vertebra and one atlas. 



The two larger humeri lack the proximal epiphyses and have 

 such similar proportions, state of preservation and color that it is 

 scarcely probable that they belonged to two different individuals. 

 Each articulates perfectly with a corresponding radius and ulna. 



The two smaller humeri, like the larger specimens, lack the prox- 

 imal epiphyses. The longer and more slender of these bones (a 

 right) measures in its fragmentary condition, 157 mm in length 

 and 34 mm transversely across the anterior face of the trochlea. 

 Similar measurements on the shorter and more robust humerus 

 (a left) are 145 mm and 35 mm respectively. 



The metacarpus (a left) presents the following measurements: 

 length 226 mm, transverse diameter of the inferior epiphysis 32 mm, 

 transverse diameter of the proximal articular surface 28 mm. 



The collection of bones from this locality indicates the remains 

 of three or more individuals. Comparisons with recent specimens 

 of the Virginia deer disclose no differences which can be regarded 

 as specific. The specimens came from the same excavation, in 

 which the bear remains (described above) were found. The larger 

 limb bones present a much fresher appearance and better state of 

 preservation than any of the other specimens from this locality. 

 The two smaller humeri show adherent particles of shell fragments 

 and were evidently collected from the marl. The other bones, with 

 one exception, 2 are apparently from the peaty layers above the marl 

 or from the contact of the two deposits. The superior preservation 

 of the larger deer bones may, in the absence of contrary evidence, 

 be urged as an argument in favor of their recent introduction by 

 sinking through soft material. Condition of preservation is, how- 

 ever, an uncertain guide to age and it is believed that in this case 

 the association of remains points to approximate contemporaneity 

 for the different individuals. 



1 W. M. Smallwood. The Remains of Bear and Deer on the Shores of 

 Onondaga Lake. Science, n.s., v. 18, no. 444, p. 26, 27. July 3, 1903. 



2 The antler fragment mentioned by Professor Smallwood was supposed 

 to have been collected with the other deer remains. Adherent grains of 

 quartz sand indicate, however, that the specimen came from a different 

 level or more probably from a different locality. It has clearly been cut or 

 sawed but the artificial surfaces, though weathered, show no adherent par- 

 ticles of quartz sand or other material. 



