466 PROCEEDINGS OF THE GEOLOGICAL SOCIETY. [Apr. 27, 
cumference is greater; but this is owing to the circumstance that 
that bone appears to be one in which the muscular ridges on the 
hinder surface are very much developed, and the whole bone un- 
usually thick. The Oreston bone is thus satisfactorily shown to be 
much larger in every way than that of 2. tichorhinus. 
But this is not all; it is not only much larger, but it differs still 
more remarkably in its proportions. These are also shown in the 
Table, in which the last two columns give the ratio, first, of the 
least circumference to the length of the bone, which I call the “ peri- 
metral index ”’—and, secondly, of the antero-posterior diameter of 
the shaft at the middle to its transverse diameter at the same point, 
which ratio I denominate the “latitudinal index.” Inspection of 
the figures in these two columns will show at a glance how 
much slenderer, and how very much more compressed or flattened, 
is the metacarpal of R. leptorhinus as compared with that of &. 
tichorhinus. 
I have not as yet met with the metacarpal of either R. hemitw- 
chus or R. etruscus; but as its dimensions, and in some measure, 
probably, its proportions may be pretty safely predicated from those 
of the corresponding metatarsal, I have subjoined a Table (I1.) of 
the dimensions and proportions of that bone in the four known 
quaternary species. 
From this it will be seen that in &. leptorhinus the middle meta- 
tarsal is about one-eighth shorter than the corresponding meta- 
carpal, and in &. tichorhinus about one-twelfth. Assuming that 
the proportion between the two bones is the same in R. hemitechus 
and &. etruscus, it follows that the mean length of the metacarpal 
in those species would be from 7:4 to 7:6; and this is doubtless not 
far from the truth. It is clear, therefore, that, as regards length, 
the metarcarpal of f. leptorhinus far exceeds that of either of the 
other three species; and, in fact, it is longer than in any species, 
living or extinct, except R. unicornis, and perhaps #. simus, of 
whose skeleton, however, we have no knowledge. Again it will 
also be perceived that although the “ perimetral index” in KR. he- 
mitechus is very nearly the same as in JL. leptorhinus, the “ latitu- 
dinal index” is considerably higher, or in the proportion of, per- 
haps, 417 to 380. This shows how much flatter or more compressed 
the metacarpal of F. leptorhinus is than than that of 2. hemitechus, 
and, as will be seen in the Table, still more strikingly than that of 
R. etruscus, which, to judge from the metatarsal, must be by far the 
most cylindrical and at the same time the slenderest of all four. 
From the above considerations, I think it impossible to avoid the 
conclusion that the Oreston metacarpal can only belong to R. 
leptorhinus. 
The only other bone to which I need refer is that numbered 906. 
It is the distal extremity, quite perfect, of the right inner meta- 
tarsal, which measures 1:8 x 1:8 in antero-posterior and transverse 
dimensions. These dimensions, to judge from an entire bone in 
the British Museum, from Grays Thurrock (no. 23761), which mea- 
sures 1-7 x 1-7, would give the Oreston metatarsal a length of 7-41, 
