differ in shape, while the manner in which the shaft in the neigh¬ 
bourhood of the ecto-condyle rises above them is markedly dif¬ 
ferent. Indeed, compared with this type, the essentially different 
sectional shapes of the two femora supply various specific con¬ 
trasts, as might be expected. 
CO M P A RATI YE F EMORA, 
X. mitchelli X. tasmanicum 
Hreadth across condyles. 
Breadth of shaft section at Owen’s line 
Antero posterior section at Owen’s line 
Circumference of ditto at Owen’s line . . 
Circumference above condyles. 
Circumference including condyles . . 
Breadth of rutular joint. 
Breadth of intercondylar fossa. 
Greatest length of femur. 
Greatest width between two vertical wall 
Girth of shaft at lower edge of the trochan- 
terian fossa. 
Girth below head. 
Diameter of head, in all directions. 
Length of neck. 
Thickness of shaft, at trochanter major .. 
Distance from top of trnchantcrian fossa to 
cpi-trochanterian surface. 
Distance from head to trochanter minor .. 
Distance from head to nutrient foramen . . 
145 111m. 
i 53 
mm. 
77 mm. 
85 
mm. 
56 mm. 
5-2 
111111. 
212 mm. 
220 
nun. 
309 mm. 
381 
mm. 
Not stated 
45 i 
111111. 
56 mm. 
86 
mm. 
35 mm. 
19 
mm. 
ot given ow¬ 
475 
mm. 
ing to muti¬ 
204 
mm. 
lation 
420 
mm. 
.. 
-251 
mm. 
83 
111111. 
63 
nun. 
95 
mm. 
-5 
mm. 
1/8 
turn. 
15-2 
mm. 
ie ento-condyle. a 
spit* 
muscular groove ascends the shaft, finally losing itself upon he 
inner edge 150 mm. from its source. 
1 he “ ligamentum teres ” was apparently missing, as there is 
no depression in the head for its insertion, and in this the animal 
agrees with the extinct ground sloth and Dinoceras, as also the 
living elephant, sea otter, seal, orang titan, and the monotremata. 
The other parts of the skeleton—the scapulae, vertebrae, ribs, 
and pelvis—arc not here detailed, but are available at any 
time for comparison. In a general way, it may he stated that the 
evidence yielded by a study of the skull, mandible, femur, 
humerus, calcaneum. and astragalus, are solid evidence enough 
for the specific distinction of the Tasmanian animal from either of 
the mainland types. 
THE HUMERUS. 
As much of the weight of my classification was thrown upon 
the humerus, so that this bone was practically elevated to the 
position of a specific type, I would like to extend the study of this 
important part of the skeleton prior to entering upon the oste¬ 
ology of the skull. From certain private correspondence that has 
