GREAT ROCK KANGAROO. 
103 
section Pelrogalc , but lie is now of opinion tlmt it is very 
nearly related to the M. antilopinm , an opinion in which 1 
agree. In the general form of the skull, M. robustus ap¬ 
proaches the M. gigantcus, and in those parts in which it 
deviates from the skull of the animal just mentioned, we can 
perceive strong indications of affinity to the At. antilopinus. 
The close relationship of the present animal to the one last 
mentioned is also displayed in the,structure of the muffle, the 
largo size and great power of the fore-legs, and the structure of 
the tarsi. As compared with the skull of M. giganlrus , that of 
Af. robust us differs in having the muzzle broader and the zygo¬ 
matic arch deeper. The sagittal crest is well marked. The 
incisor teeth scarcely differ from those of Af. antilopinus ; 
die external grooves on the posterior incisor arc indistinct, 
but the two can be traced, and they occupy the same position 
as in die incisor of the animal just mentioned. The skull 
differs from diat of Af. antilopinus in being more elougated, 
in having the muzzle narrower, and broadest behind; the 
frontal bones are less concave between the orbits. The 
palate is almost desdtute of posterior palatine openings. — 
These notes are drawn up from a skull in Mr. Gould s collec¬ 
tion, which furnishes the following dimensions :— 
Length of skull . 
Inches. 
... 7 
Lines. 
7 
Width . 
3 
10 
“ of intcrorbital space. 
1 
2 
Length of nasal bones ... 
3 
2 
Width of ditto at the base . 
1 
31 
“ “ near the apex . 
0 
10 
Depth of zygomatic arch behind 
1 
H 
Length of palate. 
4 
7 
11 of three upper incisors 
0 
n 
—of which the posterior incisor is 
0 
Distance between iucisors and molars 
1 
Length of the five molar teeth taken 
together . 
2 
2 
Length of lower jaw ... 
... 5 
4 1 
Height from apex of coronoid process ... 
3 
1 
