the osteology of hy^nodon. 
„r fitter view. I., favor of the plantigrade poritioo may be mentioned the 
,,r„ .orlim... hclween the arm and foie-arm, ae well M those between the thrgh and 
le... the clnmlfter of the carpus, tl.e absence of any tendinol sulcus on the free end 
oalie oalcaiieiiiii, tlie large size of the pollex and hallux and the fact that the digits 
do not form svimiu'trical pairs, but are all of different lengths. On the other hand, 
the back ward’ projectio.i of the head of the humerus and its position with reference 
to the line of the shaft, the height of the humeral trochlea, the character of the 
rotular trochlea of the femur and the position of the femorcul condyles, the deep 
grooving of the astragalus and the length of the tuber calcis, all seem to indicate a 
di'Mtigradc gait, hi the restoration herewith given a semi-plantigrade position, such 
as occurs in many imistelines and viverrines has been selected as the most proba- 
ble. Hut for the lact that so many of the bones drawn belong to one individual, I 
should feel groat hesitation in publishing this grotesque figure. 
In the following table comparative measurements of Hycstiodo7i crue7ihi.s and 
Cinis occideulalis are given to display the different proportions of the various parts 
of the skeleton in the two genera. In both cases the length of the skull is taken 
a.s 100 and the relative lengths of the different bones calculated to the nearest in- 
teger. There is some room for error in the measurements of Hyesnodon, because 
the skeleton is made up from several individuals, though the skull, neck, nine 
thoracic and four lumbar vertebrm, the sacrum, scapula, ulna and radius, carpus, 
femur, tibia and fibula are all from one specimen. In addition to this it should be 
noted that the different specimens contain many parts in common, so that the vari- 
ous proportions may he calculated from one to the other without any great risk of 
serious error. Thus, the small, undetermined H. sp. has the skull, vertebral col- 
umn complete to the sacrum, tibia and fibula and hind-foot; a second specimen of 
//. cruenliis consists of the mandible, axis, humerus, ulna, pelvis, femur; a third of 
the skull, many vertebrm, femur and pes, and so on. The wolf-skeleton has been 
selected ^ lor the purpose of comparison, because the actual length of the skull is 
not lar Irom being the same as that of H. cruentus, and it is therefore well adapted 
hu- bringing clearly to light the altogether different proportions of a modern car- 
nivore from those of even a highly differentiated creodont. 
1 , ^ TU'te possible that, as Filhol has suggested, HycBnodon was of aquatic 
habits; ,f so, this would partly account for its extraordinary proportions. 
C. OCCIOENTAUS. 
Length of skull , 
“ of neck . ' ’ 
“ of thoracic region 
of lumbar region 
“ of scapula 
“ of humerus 
“ of radius 
o phalanges 
“ of femur 
“ of tibia . ■ ■ 
of isis, without phalanges ! 
100 
97 
139 
93 
63 
100 
67 
127 
.62 
29 
65 
