230 r ' 
cance tests on humeral length, proximal 
width, and length of deltoid crest (Table 
15) demonstrate that the means of the two 
series are significantly different. The ranges 
of all intramembral ratios calculated for the 
humerus overlap, but the significance tests 
show that the means are statistically differ¬ 
ent. The bone is in all dimensions heavier 
in the fossil. With the exception of the co¬ 
efficient of variation for length of the deltoid 
crest, all these coefficients are greater in 
am plus than in calif ornianus. The relatively 
greater V for this crest in the Recent species 
may be an indication that the length of the 
crest is now undergoing a change. Through¬ 
out Table 2 the standard deviations for 
measurements made on calif ornianus indi¬ 
cate that the sample probably was sufficiently 
large to include 80 to 95 per cent of the 
actual range. On this same basis the sample 
of am plus was distributed over the range 
that would be expected for 90 per cent of 
the whole population. 
Table 3 shows that absolute measurements 
of the ulna for the two series overlap in 
every instance. Significance tests on ulnar 
length indicate that there is 1 chance in 20 
that the two series could have come from 
the same population; further, the means are 
significantly different. Tests (Table 15) on 
PACIFIC SCIENCE, Vol. 1, October, 1947 
TABLE 4 
Length of the Metacarpus (mm.)* 
Number of specimens. j 3 
I 118 
Range. \ 131-133 
I 129-148 
Mean . f 132±.6l 
\ 139±.37 
Standard deviation . { 1.05±.43 
l 4.06±.26 
Coefficient of variation... { - 80 
\ 2.92±.19 
* First row of figures under each category pertains to 
calif ornianus, the second row to amplus. 
distal and proximal widths of the ulna re¬ 
vealed that means of the two series are statis¬ 
tically distinct. Raw ratios of a single ulna 
cannot be used to identify the species, but 
again the means of ratios for the two series 
are significantly different. As regards the 
ulna, the coefficient of variation in amplus 
is larger than in calif ornianus in one instance, 
smaller in three, and about equal in another. 
Although the sample for the Recent condor 
was small, it probably includes about 80 per 
cent of the expected range of variation of 
the entire population. 
The available number of metacarpal ele¬ 
ments of the modern condor was too small 
for reliable treatment, but the metacarpus 
seems to be significantly longer in the fossil 
(Tables 5 and 15). 
TABLE 3 
Measurements (mm.) and Proportions of the Ulna* 
NO. 
SPEC¬ 
RANGE 
MEAN 
STANDARD 
COEFFICIENT 
IMENS 
DEVIATION 
VARIATION 
Length . 
( 8 
305-320 
313±1.75 
4.96±1.24 
1.58± .40 
l 31 
304-345 
322±2.2 
12.2 ±1.55 
3.79± .48 
Proximal width . 
f 8 
28.9-32.7 
31.1± .46 
1.30± .33 
4.17± 1.05 
\ 25 
32.2-36.7 
34.3 ± .28 
1.4l± .20 
4.11± .58 
Distal width. 
S 8 
16.1-25.0 
20.6±:1.39 
3.92 ± .98 
19.0 ±4.75 
\ 28 
23.6-27.9 
25.8± .10 
.54± .07 
2.09 ± .28 
PROPORTIONS OF ULNA 
Proximal width : length . 
{ . 
9.3-10.3 
9.94 ± 
.11 
.31± .08 
3.12 ± .78 
\ . 
9.9-11.0 
10.5 ± 
.04 
.21± .03 
2.00± .28 
Distal width : length. 
f . 
5.2-7.9 
6.58± 
.41 
1.16± .29 
17.7 ±4.42 
i . 
7.4-8.6 
7.95 ± 
.05 
.28± .04 
3.52 ± .47 
* First row of figures under each category pertains to calif ornianus, the second row to amplus. 
