62 
DK. W. KOWALEVSKY ON THE 
perceive that the large cuneiform is formed by the coalescence of the second and third, 
while the first cuneiform remains distinct, giving support to the rudimentary metatarsal n. 
The same relation may be seen in our recent Ruminantia, whose large cuneiform bone is 
therefore to be taken as the homologue of the third and second, the first remaining distinct. 
Having traced our three cuneiforms, even in the most reduced Paridigitata, it is 
natural to ask how the matter stands in Anoplotherium , the reputed prototype of every 
Paridigitate. In this respect the confusion is very great ; and it originated with Cuvier. 
In his description of the Anoplotherian pes he says (‘ Oss. Foss.’ 4th ed. p. 147, 
plate 128), that he found “ le grand cuneiforme C ” (which is our third cuneiform) 
and, besides, another bone (plate cxxviii. fig. 2, h ), which he calls “ osselet surnu- 
meraire,” and assumes to be a rudiment of the second digit, saying (p. 147) that it 
articulates to the facet i of the scaphoid, and the facet k of the third metatarsal. 
(This bone is, no doubt, our first cuneiform, Plate XXXVII. fig. 11, c v ) If we 
look at the restoration of the pes of Anoplotherium in He Blainville, and read his text, 
we shall see that he speaks of three cuneiforms, and even figures them (He Blainville, 
‘ Osteogr.’ Anopl. plate iv., side view of pes) ; B is the third cuneiform, C the second ; 
and the bone lying backwards from it is certainly the first cuneiform. I take this 
restoration to be in the main right ; only the second cuneiform, which is represented in 
the side view as articulated to the scaphoid, has, in his figure of the distal extremity 
of the scaphoid (a little below), no such facet on this bone, the facets figured being for 
the first and third cuneiform only. But if we read his text we shall find the con- 
fusion which is so characteristic of his palaeontological writings. He says : — “ Les 
os cuneiformes sont au nombre de trois: 1 e premier, assez allonge .... colle contre 
le metatarse ; le second presque de meme forme, un peu moins recule, articule avec 
le scaphoide d’une part et le metatarsien du medius de 1’ autre, et enfin le troisieme 
. . . . articule carrement avec le scaphoide en haut et la metatarsien du medius en 
bas. : ’ — Anopl. p. 35. 
So, in the interpretation of He Blainville, the first cuneiform does not touch the 
scaphoid at all (in the description of the scaphoid, p. 35, he says : — “ le scaphoide a 
a son bord interne un tubercule ovale un peu saillant pour l’articulation du second 
cuneiforme, outre un beaucoup plus grand pour le troisieme ”), but is applied to the 
third metatarsal, the second cuneiform being, in his description, also articulated with 
the same metatarsal ; and the third cuneiform is the chief support of the third digit. 
All the three cuneiforms, then, are said by He Blainville to articulate with the third 
metatarsal ; but I regret to say that this is entirely incorrect. I enter into such detailed 
descriptions only because such matters should be at once set right ; the real state of 
things is this : — The Anoplotherium possessed all the three typical cuneiforms * in their 
* Their relations to the metatarsals were entirely identical with what we see in Hippopotamus : the third 
cuneiform supported the third digit ; the second cuneiform supported (the rudiment of) the second digit ; and 
the first cuneiform was articulated to the navicular above the second cuneiform in front, and the rudiment 
of the second digit below. 
