622 PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM. vol.59. 



the front of the sigmoid cavity to the lower end of the radius. The 

 articular surface of the upper end of the radius is 35.5 mm. wide. 

 From the articular surface to the foramen corresponding to the one 

 mentioned above the distance is 33 mm. These measurements 

 appear to indicate that the forearm of the fossil animal was both 

 longer and slenderer than that of Platygonus. The genus Mylohyus 

 appears to be indicated. 



Family CAMELIDAE. 



In the collection being considered the writer recognizes remains 

 of two species of camels. Unfortunately the parts are scanty and 

 fragmentary. 



PROCAMELUS COCONINENSIS, new species. 



Plate 122, figs. 4-6; plate 123, fig. 5. 



Type specimen. — An upper left second molar (Cat. No. 10154). 



Type locality. — Coconino Forest plateau, Arizona. 



Type formation. — Early Pleistocene. 



Diagnosis. — The type molar resembles that of P. major, but has 

 the outer crescents much thicker at the same level. 



Of a very large camel there are present the greater part of an upper 

 molar tooth and some foot bones. 



The tooth (pi. 122, figs. 4, 5) is taken to be the upper left second 

 molar. The writer has the advantage of having for comparison the 

 materials figured in the paper by Leidy and Lucas on some fossil 

 remains found in the Alachua clays, at a point 10 miles south of 

 Archer, Levy County, Florida. 13 



The tooth from Anita has lost nearly the whole of the inner crescent 

 of the front lobe and a part of that of the hinder. It is worn down 

 pretty well, the height of the lobes being about 20 mm. The length 

 of the crown at the base is 36 mm. ; at the grinding surface, along the 

 midline, 38 mm. The width of the hinder lobe appears to be 33 mm. ; 

 that of the front lobe can not be determined. When comparison 

 is made with the upper right second molar figured in the paper cited 

 (pi. 17, fig. 4) some differences are observed. The length of the 

 two crowns, taken at the same level, is almost exactly the same. 

 The length of the hinder lobe in the Florida tooth is about 2 mm. 

 less. The styles and ribs on the outer faces of the teeth are hardly 

 different, and the minute differences might be those of individual 

 teeth or of individual animals. There appear to be, however, impor- 

 tant differences in the widths of the outer crescents (paracone and 

 metacone), those of the Arizona animal being much thicker. Inas- 

 much as the crowns of the two teeth compared have quite exactly 

 the same height the differences in width must be due to actual differ- 



13 Trans. Wagner Free Inst., vol. 4, pp. i-xiv; 15-61, pis. 1-19. 



