1885.] NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA. 199 



occipital, and a prominent knob on the frontal ridge, neither of 

 which is present in Cervus. (6) In Cervus the skull is short and 

 broad, and the diastema of moderate length ; in Alces the skull 

 is long and narrow, and the diastema ver}' long. (7) In Cervus 

 the tympanic bulla is inflated ; in Alces not. (8) Cervus has a 

 horizontal zygoma; in Alces it is directed downwards and forwards. 



(9) Cervus possesses canine teeth in both sexes; Alces in neither. 



(10) Alces has a short neck and trunk, long limbs and head; 

 Cervus has longer neck and trunk and shorter legs. (11) In 

 Alces there is a proboscis-like upper lip and almost obsolete 

 rhinarium; Cervus has larger rhinarium and ordinary snout. In 

 nearly all of these particulars, Alces is plainly a greater departure 

 from the ordinaiy cervine type than is Cervus, and must, there- 

 fore, be regarded as a more differentiated and highly specialized 

 form. If this be the case, we should naturally conclude that 

 Alces is the descendant of some form much more closely allied to 

 Cervus than itself is. That the descent cannot be from the actual 

 genus Cervus seems to be plain from the character of the fore- 

 foot. A reasonable inference seems to be that the common ances- 

 tor of the two genera had already attained the structure of skull 

 found in the Old World deer, but that its fore-feet were tetra- 

 dactyl, the lateral metacarpals, though slender, were complete or 

 nearly so in length. 



Now Cervalces throws some light upon this community of 

 origin and subsequent divergence of the two genera. In many 

 respects, as we have already seen, Cervalces differs very decidedly 

 from Alces, and nearly all these differences are approximations 

 to the structure of Cervus, a result which can hardly be accidental. 

 But except in the skull, the structure of the fossil form is much 

 nearer to that of Alces. The fossil agrees with Alces: (1) In 

 the short neck and trunk and very long legs ; (2) in being 

 telemetacarpal ; (3) in having palmated antlers ; (4) in the absence 

 of an inflated tympanic bulla; (5) in the shape of the zygoma; 

 (6) in the absence of canine teeth. 



On the other hand it agrees with Cervus: (1) In the presence 

 of the bez-tine (?) and posterior tine on the antlers ; (2) in having 

 long nasals; (3) in the shape and relations of the premaxillae ; 

 (4) in the absence of the supra-occipital notch and knob on the 

 frontal ridge ; (5) in the greater proportionate breadth of the 



