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.)