30 R. W. Slmfeldt 



Aletornis gracilis Marsh. 



(Plale VI, Fig. 45.) 



Marsh, Amer. Journ. Sci., ser. 3, IV, 1872, 257. 



Holotype. Cat. No. 61, Peabody Museum, Yale University. Henry's Fork, 

 Wyoming. Eocene (Bridger). H. D. Ziegler, collector. 



Represented by the imperfect proximal end of a left humerus, which, 

 as far as it goes, comes quite close to the corresponding part of the left 

 humerus of an adult specimen of a male American Woodcock (Philo- 

 hela minor). So imperfect is this fragment, however, and so little is 

 there of it that it is quite impossible to state with certainty that it 

 belonged to a Philohela, either a living or an extinct species; it is quite 

 possible for it to have belonged to some kind of a Snipe of a like size. 

 Furthermore, what valid reason is there, considering the material at 

 hand, for placing this Aletornis gracilis of Marsh in the same genus 

 with Aletornis bellus of that writer? It is very safe to say that the 

 two fragments of fossil bones in question, although certainly from 

 birds, did not, nevertheless, originally belong to species of the same 

 genus. Had the corresponding pieces, and no more, been handed to 

 me, and it was stated that they were from the skeletons of exisiing 

 birds, I should have said that one belonged to some kind of Sandpiper 

 (Alewrnis bellus), and the other to a small Woodcock or a Snipe of 

 close alliance thereto (Aletornis gracilis). I would have had nothing 

 to say about the genera, unless more material was submitted for me to 

 pass on in the connection. 



Aletornis nobilis Marsh. 



(Plate II, Fig. 15; Plate VI, Fig. 43.) 



Marsh, Amer. Joum. Sci., ser. 3, IV, 1872, 255. 



Holotype. Cat. No. 63, Peabody Museum, Yale University. Grizzly Buttes, 

 Wyoming. Eocene (Bridger). O. Harger, collector. 



The material upon which Marsh named this species consists of a 

 compressed, distorted, imperfect end of a left tarso-metatarsus, and 

 two fragments of other bones, all belonging, as he states, to some bird 

 of considerable size. 



In his description. Marsh was quite right in stating that they repre- 

 sented — in so far as the tarso-metatarsus is concerned — some kind of a 

 Crane. This is no reason, however, w^hy he should have relegated 

 the species to his genus Aletornis, in which he had already associated 

 two other forms — one like a Woodcock and another like a Sandpiper, 



