» 
HATCHER: ADDITIONAL REMARKS ON DIPLODOCUS 73 
externally, as shown in Fig. 1, and its articular surface is opposed to that of the 
distal end of the humerus posteriorly throughout its entire breadth and presents a 
broad and deep anterior projection enclosing the radius externally and articulating 
with the anterior and external surface of the distal end of the humerus. 
Fic. 2. 
Fig. 1. a, front view of radius and ulna of Diplodocus (No. 662). 6, proximal end of same. Both 
figures are one tenth natural size and show bones as seen when in position. 
Fic. 2. a, front view of supposed clavicle of Diplodocus. 6, internal view of same (No. 662), one 
tenth natural size. 
The contact of the radius with the humerus is thus limited to the antero-internal 
surface instead of the antero-external as erroneously shown in my original restora- 
tion of the skeleton. The radius and ulna do not cross each other so completely as 
supposed by Osborn and Granger, but occupied the position relative to one another 
shown in Fig. 1. 
Second.— The structure of the manus was entaxonic instead of mesaxonic as 
erroneously represented in my original restoration where, as stated in the text, I 
followed Osborn, having at that time no material upon which to base a restoration 
of those elements. The manus was doubtless somewhat more plantigrade than I at 
that time represented it. In the present restoration these errors in the structure of 
the fore limbs and manus have been corrected. The principal characters of the 
