1886.] NATURAL SCIENCES OP PBILADELPHIA- 363 



the hindermost were two other molars. This would give four 

 premolars and six molars. Or there may have been three pre- 

 molars and seven molars as in Dromatherium. Unfortunately no 

 casts are preserved to settle this point, and the restoration of the 

 missing teeth is purely conjectural. 



The molars are somewhat like those of Amphitherium except 

 that the crowns are higher and the anterior and posterior cusps 

 arise from the sides of the main cusp instead of from the base of the 

 crown. The posterior basal cusp which may be the continuation of 

 an internal cingulum is well marked, as is the depression between 

 the two fangs. The third premolar is much larger than the 

 first, and has an indication of two fangs. There is a trace of 

 the fang of the intermediate premolar. These teeth, unlike 

 those of Dromatherium^ are erect and do not rise to the level of 

 the molar crowns. The simple premolars differentiate the genus 

 from Amjjhitherium. 



Princeton, N. J., December 20t7i. 



