FOSSILS FROM THE ALUM BLUFF, ALACHUA AND BONE VALLEY 
FORMATIONS. 
PLATE 13. 
All illustrations on this plate twice natural size. 
Fig. 1 : Mesocyon? iamonensis. Type specimen. Showing 
two upper molars and the carnassial. Fla. Surv. coll. No. 5083 
Figs. 2-3: Parahippus leonensis. Type specimen. View of 
the grinding surface and exterior side of the cheek tooth. Fla. 
Surv. coll. No. 5084. The object shown in front of and at the 
outer side of the crochet is not a structural feature but represents 
an elongated pebble lodged in the prefossette, which should per¬ 
haps have been omitted from the drawing. 
Figs. 4-5 : Mcrychippus. sp. Lower cheek tooth from the ful¬ 
ler's earth mine at Midway. Fla. Surv. coll. No. 7527. 
Fig. 6: Mcrychippus sp. Lower cheek tooth from the fuller's 
earth mine at Quincy. Fla. Surv. coll. No. 173. 
Fig. 7: Hipparion minor. Paratype. From the Alachua for¬ 
mation (hard rock phosphate deposits), Neals. Fla. Surv. coil. 
No. 1167. 
Fig. 8: Hipparion minor. Type specimen. From the Alachua 
formation, Brewster. Fla. Surv. coll. No. 5867. 
After the present paper had been put into page proof the writer 
obtained well preserved upper cheek teeth of Mcrychippus from 
the fuller’s earth mine at Midway which are thus associated with 
the lower cheek teeth illustrated on this plate. The upper cheek 
teeth are short hypsodont and are provided with cement. The 
protocone is small and is distinctly flattened anteroposteriorly and 
is separated, as may be seen in the unworn tooth, for a short dis¬ 
tance from the protoconule. The hypocone likewise is small and is 
placed well back on the inner margin of the tooth. In the worn 
tooth it may be seen that the enamel bordering the lakes is strongly 
crenulated, and that the protocone is united with the protoconule 
The anteroposterior measurement of the cheek tooth is 17 mm.; 
transverse 15 mm.; height of crown of unworn molar 21 mm 
In comparing Mcrychippus and the associated vertebrates with 
the invertebrates listed on page 91, it is well to bear in mind that 
while both faunas appear to come from the same formation, the 
fossils were not found in immediate association, and there may be 
some difference in level, or even possibly a stratigraphic break be¬ 
tween the two faunas. 
