The Deseado formation of Patagonia (1914) (14577238310)

Identifier: deseadoformation00loom (find matches)
Title: The Deseado formation of Patagonia
Year: 1914 (1910s)
Authors: Loomis, Frederic Brewster, b. 1873 Amherst College
Subjects: Paleontology
Publisher: (Concord, N.H., The Rumford press)
Contributing Library: Harvard University, Museum of Comparative Zoology, Ernst Mayr Library
Digitizing Sponsor: Harvard University, Museum of Comparative Zoology, Ernst Mayr Library



Text Appearing Before Image:
distal end, its articular trochleaextends well onto the dorsal surface, as does also the carina.Mt. IV is a trifle shorter than the others and stouter.Mt. V is absent but its former presence is indicated bythe beveled facet on the cuboid, and by the small roughenedsurface on Mt. IV. The phalanges of the third digit arc a trifle heavier thanthose of the other two digits, but of approximately thesame lengths. The ungual phalanges were broad com-pressed hoofs, without traces of clefts. Measurements of the Hind Limb Femur, length from the head 177 mm. greatest proximal width 7^ mm. greatest distal width 56 mm. Tibia, total length I49 mm. greatest prf)ximal width 52 mm. greatest distal width 56 mm. Fibula diameter of shaft 9 mm. Astragulus, length 23 mm. width 24 mm. Calcaneum, length 62 mm. Metatarsus IF, length 45 mm. Metatarsus III, length 48 mm. Metatarsus IV, length 42 mm. Phalanx i of digit III, length 24 mm. Phalanx 2 of digit III, length 16 mm. Phalanx 3 of digit HI, length 17 mm.
Text Appearing After Image:
50 the deseado formation of patagonia RestorationTn order to get a comparison of what is known of thisform with Theosodon I have outlined a restoration of theanimal as a whole, realizing that some evSsential parts arelarking, but the general proportions can hardly vary greatlyfrom those given. It appears, first, that this form hasan unusually short back. Though the limbs and lowerjaw arc f the length of those of Theosodon garrettorum,the vertebrae are ; as long. I have assumed that thenumber of vertebrae would prove to be the same as inTheosodon. While the limb bones are g as long as in theTheosodon, they are relatively half again as heavy and withthe processes much more developed. The greatest differ-ence is found in the tarsus which is only ^ as long as thatof Theosodon, though relatively as heavy, and the footwas carried in a nearly plantigrade position the heel raisedbut a little from the ground, though the anticular ends ofthe metatarsals and the phalanges indicate that there was