26] 
RECORDS OF W.A MUSEUM. 
preserves its breadth to the truncate summit, while in P . platyrliinus 
it contracts to that summit which is thick, obtuse and tuberous. 
The hind border of the olecranon is thicker in P. latifrons than in 
P. platyrliinus. The surface for the ulnar division of the humeral 
joint is relatively longer, narrower and more obtuse in P. latifrons 
than in P. platyrliinus. 
The specimen under examination is much more closely 
allied to the platyrhine type in the form and size of the olecranon, 
and the surface for the ulnar division of the humeral joint, and as it 
agrees with Owen’s figures in all other points further notice is 
unnecessary. The total length of the bone is 148mm. 
No other bones of the fore limb have, as yet, been recognised, 
though it is quite possible that some may be present in the 
■collection. 
The sacrum has already received attention so that we may 
proceed to describe the pelvis. The upper portion of the right 
“ os innominatum ” is fairly complete, though the greater portion 
of bones forming the pelvis are either missing or in a fragmentary 
state. In the Caves specimen the bone (the ilium) is slender as in the 
platyrhine type and is much more elongated than is the correspond- 
ing portion of the skeleton in P. latifrons. 
Of the other extremity of the bone we have the end of the 
ischium including “ the expansion of the great tuberosity ” in 
which again there is both in extent and outline an undoubted 
similarity with the platyrhine and a difference from the latifront 
forms. 
Of the bones of the hind limbs there is the femur 
in a perfect state. Referring to this bone in examples of 
P. platyrliinus and P. latifrons , Owen says, “ The femur is thicker in 
proportion to its length in P. latifrons than in P. platyrliinus. 
Both trochanters are rather more prominent, but the genuine 
characters of the bone . . are closely preserved in all Wombats.” 
This authority figures bones of P. latifrons only, so that there is no 
opportunity of comparing the specimens with drawings of that 
portion of the skeleton of the other species ; at the same time it 
•may be stated that the Mammoth Cave specimens are decidedly 
more slender than the bones exemplified by Owen’s figures. 
Another authority, C. W. De Vis, of the Queensland Museum, 
enters more fully into the shape, size and character of this bone of 
