14G 
TEin’IAUY VERTEBRATA OF THE FAYtlM. 
this respect also it :i,p[)roxiniates to a humerus of Mantodon with wliich it has been 
compared. The olecranon fossa {o.f.) is just as in Elcphas, and the distal view of 
the lower end of tlie humerus is almost precisely like that of a humerus of Elcphas 
Dieridumalis figured by Adams (‘ llritish Fossil Elephants,’ pi. xvi. fig. 3). 
Hind Limb. — In the same locality was found a portion of a right os innominatum 
consisting of the acetal)ulum and the acetabular ends of the pelvic bones. This 
sjjecimen differs in no important respect from the same region of the pelvis of the later 
Froboscidea, Avhile, on the otlier hand, it is very unlike what is seen in the pelvis of 
ylrsinoithcrium, the only other animal with which confusion would be likely. The very 
large acetabulum is perhaps a little more circular in outline than in Elephas, and at the 
same time the cotylar notch is wider and the pit for the lujamentum teres is deeper. 
'I’he ischinm is mnch more flattened and thinner than in Elephas and its postero- 
superior border forms a prominent crest-like ridge. The pubis is like that of Elephas. 
'The upper end of the obturator foramen is like that of the African Elephant and is not, 
as in the Indian Elephant and the Mammoth, marked off into a sort of notch by a 
projecting point of bone. This specimen differs from tlie pelvis of Arsinoitherlum in 
file following points : — (1) the acetabnlum is nearly circular in outline, in Arsinoitherium 
it is oval ; (2) the cotylar notch is much broader and the pit for the ligament larger 
and deeper; (3) the obturator foramen seems to have been relatively much larger; 
(4) the ischium is broader, thinner, and flatter. In short, it may bo said that this 
specimen differs from the ])elvis of Arsinoitherium in almost exactly the same respects 
as docs the pelvis of Elephas. 
A femur (PL XVI. figs. 3, 3 a) from the same locality is the only specimen of that 
bone in the collections of Cairo and London that is definitely Proboscidean in 
character and can be referred to Palwomastodon — a circumstance which still further 
emphasises the extraordinary rarity of bones of the skeleton of that animal. The 
head is nearly hemispherical ; it rises considerably above the great trochanter and 
bears a deep pit for the liijamendum teres (not shown in figure) in the middle of its 
posterior half. The neck, which is directed obliquely upwards, is greatly compressed 
from before backwards. The head ili.) rises less above the great trochanter than 
in E. africanus, but more than in E. maxinms. The great trochanter {g.t.) is 
developed to about the same extent as in the femur of j\lastodon ; the smaller is 
represented by a slight ridge. The digital fossa is merely a shallow concavity, dying 
away distally on the flat posterior surface of the u])])er half of the shaft. In its 
middle portion the hinder face of the shaft is convex and is ])roduced outwards 
into a prominent ridge {t.t.), which seems to represent the third trochanter ; this is 
also developed to some extent in the Mammoth femur, but scarcely at all in the 
recent Elephants. In a femur of Tetrabelodon angustidens tigured by de Plainville 
(• Osteographie,’ Atlas, vol. v. ])1. xiii., Elephas) this ridge is well developed, but is 
rather lower down the shaft than in Ealwomastodon. At the distal end of the bone 
