The femur of the Macrauchenia (fig. 1, Pl. [XII].) is full two feet in length, and consequently longer than in any known Camel or Rhinoceros; as compared with its transverse diameter it is much longer than the femur of the latter animal: in the proportion of its breadth to its length, and the expansion of its extremities as compared with the diameter of the shaft, it more resembles that of the Camel. The femur of the Giraffe deviates from that of the Macrauchenia in the excessive expansion of its distal extremity. But the most striking evidence deducible from this bone, of the affinity of the Macrauchenia to the true Pachydermatous type is afforded by the evident traces of a third trochanter, the outline of which is conjecturally restored in the figure. Of the Pachyderms which have this characteristic structure, the extinct Palæothere offers the nearest resemblance to the Macrauchene in the general form and structure of the femur.
The head of the femur in the Macrauchene (fig. 2, Pl. [XII].) presents the form of a pretty regular hemisphere; it is less flattened above, and is directed more obliquely inwards than in the Palæothere: the neck supporting it does not project so far from the shaft as in the Palæothere or Tapir, but farther than in the Camel. The great trochanter rises above the level of the head; in which structure and in the depression between the head and trochanter, the femur of the Macrauchene offers a character intermediate between the Tapir or Palæothere, and the Camel. The lesser trochanter is a slight projection from a ridge of bone which is continued from the under part of the head of the femur to the inner surface of the shaft. In the Palæothere the lesser trochanter is situated more towards the posterior surface of the femur; so that, in this particular, the Macrauchene approaches nearer to the Camel. Cuvier makes no mention of the condition of the depression for the ligamentum teres in the Palæothere. Among existing ordinary Pachyderms the Hippopotamus presents no trace of the insertion of a ligamentum teres in the head of the femur; in the Camel the place of its insertion is indicated by a well-marked circumscribed pit; in the Tapir a similar circular depression is situated close to the inferior margin of the articular convexity. The ligament was undoubtedly present in Macrauchenia, but the place of its insertion is a broad and deep notch leading from the under and back part of the head of the bone a little way into its articular surface: this I regard as another of those interesting transitional structures with which the remains of the Macrauchenia, few and imperfect though they unfortunately are, so freely abound.
The femur of Macrauchenia, in the flatness of the back part of its neck, and the elongated form of the post-trochanterian depression, resembles that of the Camel rather than that of the Palæothere; and the same resemblance is shown in the cylindrical figure, straightness, and length of the shaft. The depth of the trochanterian depression, and the incurvation of the strong ridge continued downwards from the great trochanter are individual peculiarities in the Macrauchenia.
A great part of the third trochanter is broken off; but from the remains of its base we see that it had the same relative size as in the Palæothere; but it is situated at the middle of the shaft of the femur, and consequently lower down than in the Palæotheres and Tapirs. In the general form and relative size of the condyles at the distal extremity of the femur (fig. 3, Pl. [IX]. and XII.) the Macrauchene is intermediate to the Camel and Palæothere, but resembles more the latter. In the articular surface for the patella, it deviates somewhat from the Palæothere, having this part longer in proportion to its breadth, more regularly and deeply concave from side to side, and with its lateral boundaries more sharply defined. In all these points the Macrauchene approaches the Camel: the same affinity is shown in the protuberance above the inner condyle; but in the extent of the posterior projection of this condyle (fig. 3, Pl. [IX].) it exceeds the Camel and Palæothere, and displays an intermediate structure between these species and the Hippopotamus.
There is a rough crescentic depression above the outer condyle where the linea aspera begins to diverge; the corresponding depression is deeper in the Hippopotamus, while in the Camel it is represented by a roughened surface only, which is not depressed. In the fossa between the rotular articulation and the external condyle the Macrauchene resembles the Camel: the interspace of the condyles is relatively wider than in the Camel, and the process above the inner condyle is more angular; in both these respects the Macrauchene inclines towards the Palæothere.
In the structure of the bones of the leg of the Macrauchenia we find the same transitional character which is afforded by the definable limits of the anchylosed bones of the fore-arm. In the Pachyderma the fibula is an entire and distinct bone. In the Ruminantia, with the exception of the small Musk-deer, and, in an inferior degree, the Elk, the fibula appears only as a short continuous process sent down from the under part of the external condyle of the tibia. In the Camel tribe the only trace of the fibula in the bones of the leg, is this process in a still more rudimental state. In the Macrauchenia the fibula is entire, but is confluent with the tibia through nearly its whole extent: the proximal part of the fibula is well defined; its head is anchylosed to the outer condyle of the tibia, but the shaft is continued free for the extent of nearly two inches, and then again becomes confluent with the tibia, forming apparently the outer ridge of that bone. About five inches from the distal end of the tibia this outer ridge becomes flattened by being, as it were, pressed against the tibia, and the anterior and posterior edges are raised above the level of the tibia; beyond this part the limits of the fibula begin again to be defined by deep vascular grooves. The outer side of the distal end of the fibula is excavated by a broad tendinous groove. The fibula and tibia are distinct bones in both the Palæothere and Anoplothere, as in the Pachyderms. It is to the former genus, however, especially Pal. magnum, that the Macrauchene presents the nearest approach in the general form of the tibia, the principal bone of its leg: but in the Macrauchene the tibia is relatively shorter, and thicker, and is straighter and less expanded at its extremities, especially the upper one, than in any of the Palæotheres.
The mesial boundaries of the two superior articulating surfaces of the tibia are raised in the form of ridges, which are separated by a deep groove; of these ridges the external is the highest, as in Pal. magnum: but the articular surfaces in the Macrauchene slope away from these ridges more than in the Palæotheres. The rotular or anterior tuberosity of the tibia is more produced, and rises higher than in the Palæotheres; the ridge continued downwards from this process is more marked in the Macrauchene, and its limits are better defined: the shaft of the tibia below the ridge is also more flattened in the antero-posterior direction than in the Palæothere. The configuration of the back part of both proximal and distal extremities of the tibia are so clearly and accurately given in figures 2 and 3, Pl. [XIII]., as to render verbal description unnecessary. Neither the text nor the figures in the ‘Ossemens Fossiles’ afford the means of pursuing the comparison between the Macrauchene and Palæothere in these particulars; and I proceed, therefore, to the consideration of the inferior articulating surface of the bones of the leg (fig. 4, Pl. [XIII].)
Since, of the hind-foot, we possess in the present collection only a single tarsal and metatarsal bone, the structure of the distal articular surface of the tibia is attended with peculiar interest, because we are taught by Cuvier that it reveals to us in the Ungulate animals the didactyle or tridactyle structure of the foot. In the Ruminants this articular surface is nearly square, and extended transversely between two perpendicular malleoli, while in the Pachyderms with three toes to the hind-foot the articular surface of the tibia is oblique, and is divided into two facets between the perpendicular malleolar boundaries. Now in the Macrauchenia, although the two bones of the leg are anchylosed together, the extent of that part of the tarsal articular surface which is due to the tibia is indicated, as in the case of the radius in the joint of the fore-arm, by a groove; and we are thus able to compare this surface with the distal articular surface of the tibia in the Palæothere and Anoplothere. It presents in the Macrauchenia a very close resemblance with that of the Palæotherium magnum,[[25]] being divided into two facets by a convex rising, which traverses the joint from behind forwards; but the ridge is narrower, the internal facet somewhat deeper, and the external oblique surface rather flatter than in the three-toed Palæothere. In the portion of the tarsal articular surface due to the fibula, we find, however, a more marked deviation from the Palæothere, and an interesting correspondence with the Anoplothere, in the inferior truncation and horizontal articular surface which is continued upon the lower extremity of the fibula, at right angles with the vertical malleolar facet which forms the outer boundary of the trochlea of the astragalus: this articular surface unerringly indicates a corresponding articular projection in the calcaneum, which, therefore, although the bone itself does not form part of the present collection, we may conclude to differ from the calcaneum of the Palæotherium, and to resemble that of the Anoplotherium, in this particular at least.
The valuable indication which the distal articular surfaces of the anchylosed tibia and fibula have given of the correspondence of the hind-foot with the fore-foot of the Macrauchenia, in regard to the number of the toes, receives ample confirmation from the astragalus, which, of all the bones in the foot, is the one that an anatomist would have chosen, had his choice been so limited, and which most fortunately has been secured by Mr. Darwin, in a very perfect state, in the present instance. I have compared this astragalus with that of the Giraffe, and other Ruminants, the Camel, the Anoplothere, the Horse, the Hog, the Hippopotamus, Rhinoceros, Tapir, and Palæothere: it is with the Pachyderms having three toes to the hind-foot, that the Macrauchenia agrees in the main distinguishing characters of this bone; its anterior articular surface, for example, is simple, and not divided into a double trochlea by a vertical ridge: lastly, it is with the astragalus of the Tapir and Palæothere that it presents the closest correspondence in the general form and the minor details of structure, and with these Pachyderms, therefore, I shall chiefly limit the comparison of the Macrauchenia, in regard to the bone in question. If the upper or tibial articular surface (fig. 5, Pl. [XIV].) be compared with that in the Palæotherium magnum (Ossem. Foss. Pl. LIV. fig. 2,) it will be seen, that the general direction of that surface is more parallel with the axis of the bone in Macrauchenia. In the Palæotherium it is turned a little towards the outer or fibular side, and in the Tapir the general direction of the same surface is placed still more obliquely. The anterior border of this articulating surface is broken by a semicircular notch in the Palæothere; in the Tapir it describes a gentle concave curve, and the Macrauchene resembles the Tapir in this respect. The chief difference between the astragalus of the Tapir and the Palæothere, when viewed from above, obtains in the relative length of the bone, anterior to the tibial articulating surface: the Macrauchene presents, in this respect, an intermediate structure, but differs from both in the greater extent of the tibial side of this part of the astragalus.
If we next direct attention to the anterior or scaphoid articular surface, (fig. 3, Pl. [XIV].) and compare it with that of the Palæotherium magnum, (fig. 4, Pl. LIV, Ossem. Foss.) it will be seen, that it presents in the Macrauchenia an oval, and in the Palæotherium an irregular quadrangular form: in the Macrauchenia, this surface is uniform or undivided, and is gently convex, except at its lower part; while in the Palæothere it is divided by an oblique ridge into a broad internal facet for the scaphoid bone, and a narrow internal surface for articulation with the os cuboides; the larger surface is also concave transversely, and slightly convex vertically: in the Tapir, the anterior surface of the astragalus deviates still further from that of the Macrauchenia, both in general form, and in the proportion of the cuboidal facet. In the didactyle Anoplotherium, Camel, and true Ruminants, where the cuboides presents a large relative size, a still greater proportion of the anterior surface of the astragalus is devoted to the articulation with this bone, and is separated from the scaphoid surface by a well-developed vertical ridge. The Macrauchenia presents, therefore, the extreme variation from this type;—and should the entire tarsus hereafter be discovered, it will doubtless be found, that the os cuboides is articulated posteriorly to the os calcis exclusively.