RK1) KANGAROO. 
107 
Length of palate ... ... .. 
Greatest width of ditto between molar teeth 
Length of five molar teeth taken together 
11 of three la*t molars taken together 
'* of three incisors taken together 
Width of the posterior incisor 
Distance between incisor and molar teeth 
Width of muzztc in the middle 
Malic. Hie walk. 
In. Lines. In. Lines. 
3 10 -13 
1 0* 
2 1 
1 G il 5) 
o m o 74 
0 34 0 25 
1 7 
13 13 
The dimensions in die first column arc from a skull in the 
British Museum, which, compared with that of Macropus 
<jiganteus , does not differ much in its proportions; the 
zygomatic arch is thrown rather less boldly outwards; the 
interorbital space is narrower, and this part, which encloses 
the turbinated bones, is less inflated; the posterior upper 
surface of the frontals is more concave, and the outer surface 
of the lachrymal bone is much larger. The incisor teeth are 
considerably smaller; the foremost incisor is broader than 
die second, and is indeed but little narrower than the third, 
which has but one shallow vortical groove, situated rather in 
front of die middle—see Plate 5, fig. 3. The fifth, or hinder- 
most molar, hud penetrated die gum in this skull, but had 
not yet come into use; it exists with the odier four molars, 
but die foremost of them is partially absorbed at the root, 
and no doubt would shortly have been east. In the second 
column are some dimensions taken from iui imperfect skull, 
bnt evidently belonging to an old individual of M . rufus . 
Upon comparing diis skull with one of M. g iganteus, of 
about equal size, I noticed, among other differences, that the 
nasal bones were longer, broader at die base, and narrower at 
the opposite extremity, and die space between the molars and 
incisors was disunedy less. The palate is without perfora¬ 
tions, or with very small openings only, as in M. gig an tens. 
Tho lower jaw differed from that of M. gigantcus very 
considerably in the height of the ascending ramus. The 
