1898.1 SCOTT — ON THE SELENODOXT ARTIODACTYLS. 77 



from p 2. The other premolars and the molars are much alike in 

 the two genera save that the latter are relatively broader in Mery- 

 codesmus. This genus differ from Lepiotragitlus in the greater com- 

 plexity of the inferior premolars, and especially in the large 

 development of the deuteroconid on p ^. From Orojneryx it may 

 be distinguished by the diastemata and by the more symmetrically 

 quadrate shape of the upper molars. 



The skull bears a close resemblance to that of Pa^-ameryx, but 

 has a somewhat more elongate muzzle and longer postorbital pro- 

 cesses of the frontals ; the forehead has the same elongate lozenge- 

 like shape, the temporal ridges converging gradually behind into 

 the short sagittal crest ; the mandible has an elongate, slender hori- 

 zontal ramus, which is somewhat stouter than that of Pararneryx ; 

 whether the very broad ascending ramus possessed a similar hook- 

 like angle to that of the latter genus cannot at present be precisely 

 determined ; the coronoid process is even more recurved and 

 pointed. The posterior nares are far back, their front border being 

 opposite m ^, and a deep palatal notch intervenes between the 

 hinder half of m ^ and the external wall of the narial canal. 



The axis has a conical odontoid process. 



The fore foot has four digits, of which the lateral metacarpals are 

 reduced and slender, though distinctly less so than in Para7?ieryx. 

 The tarsus is lower than in the latter genus, and the lateral meta- 

 tarsals are functional, not mere filiform splints. The phalanges are 

 essentially alike in the two genera. 



The entire structure of Merycodesmus strongly suggests that it 

 was the forerunner of the White River genus, Leptotneryx, and, 

 through a somewhat different line, of Protoceras also. In Lep- 

 tomeryx the upper canines have been lost, the lower canine resem- 

 bles an incisor, but p y is just like a minute canine and one can 

 hardly escape the inference that it formerly functioned as a canine 

 and has dwindled because of the loss of the upper canine, which it 

 opposed. Protoce7'as still retains, in the male sex, the large upper 

 canine, which is opposed by p. y and thus abraded upon the poste- 

 rior surface, but in the females the upper canine is vestigial. 



Camelomeryx, gen. nov. 



I.^, C.i, P.i, M.-^. Upper incisors small, canines stout, but short; 

 along diastema between p i and p ^. Premolars and molars closely 



