ANNALS OF THE QUEENSLAND MUSEUM, No. 5. 
9 
sufficiently marked in the figure). The resulting inability to project 
the two parts of the leg in quite the same plane, or at least the 
ability to project them in different planes, must have affected the 
habitual gait of the animal, and not improbably had relation to some 
peculiar function of tbe lower leg. Of the two condylar surfaces 
that of the inner side is in Thylacinus — Plate V., fig. B, 1, of nearly 
the same shape — namely, pointed ovate — as that of the outer side, and 
is not greatly the longer ; in the fossil tibia the outer-surface is 
nearly circular, the inner oval and of so much greater longitude that 
its posterior margin extends backwards considerably beyond that of 
the outer. The extent of this surface is, of course, adapted to the 
unusual length of the inner condyle of the femur, and, it may be 
observed in passing, the mutual adaptation observable in this respect 
greatly strengthens the probability of the two bones being from 
animals of the same species. 
Calca^ettm. — Plate V., fig. D. — On comparing this bone 
with the heel-bones of the marsupials one by one no doubt remains, 
at least in the writer's mind, of its Dasyuridine affinities, while its 
tridimensional measurements- nearly twice those of the largest existing 
Dasyure (Thylacinus) — compel him to ascribe to it the same origin as 
the proportionately-sized radius, tibia and femurs already referred to 
Thylacoleo. Among differential characters — certainly of generic, 
probably of higher value — the most noticeable are these : A distinct 
incurvation of the shaft, the absence of the oval f aeette on the edge 
of the cuboid articular surface of Thylacinus — Plate V., fig. C, 1 — 
corresponding to the similar facette on the astragalus, and its 
replacement by au extension of the rough lateral surface — Plate V., 
fig. D, 1 — and a deeper and divided surface for the reception of 
the astragalus. It is evident from the curve of the bone that whereas 
the lower leg was directed outwards at the knee, the foot had the 
opposite direction, inwards, to a greater extent than in Thylacinus. 
Possibly these twists in the hind leg, slight though they might be, 
would be helpful to it if it habitually crouched orer its food. 
However this may be, one thing is clear — that these bones, the two 
femurs, the tibia, radius, three calcanea (and to these may be added 
the number of ungual phalanges known) all belonged to a large 
Dasyuridine, and, therefore, predaceous animal. 
Those who on the evidence of teeth and cranium alone hesitate 
to see a beast of prey in Thylacoleo will find of course no conclusive 
argument adverse to their opinion in the question — to what 
animal then, other than Thylacoleo^ are these bones to be attributed? 
With a certain degree of reason they may refer us to 
future discovery for the revelation of the real owner of 
them, even as they themselves, on the other hand, await the 
discovery of a skeleton of Thylacoleo showing kinship with a more or 
less frugivorous family. That these Dasyuridine bones are the first 
forthcoming may be due to a mere accident. But is it not within the 
pale of possibility thai teeth and cranium may not in every case be the 
all sufficient criterion of affinity and habit ?' and what if it could be 
shown that the very teeth in question have probably done predaceous 
