PALEOCENE AIAMMALS OF CENTRAL UTAH — GAZIN 



33 



at the anteroexternal portion of the molars. M^ is relatively smaller 

 than in L. dlsju/nctus and the metacone, though distinct, is not so 

 well developed, and the cingiiliim is less prominent and is discon- 

 tinuous around the lingual and buccal surfaces of the tooth. 



An M- vrith material numbered 15544 shows more acute antero- 

 external and posteroexternal styles, no mesostyle, a lower protocone 

 than in L. disjunotiis^ protoconule and metaconule relatively weak 

 as in L. disjunctus, but the hypocone is 

 much more lingual in position and is 

 nearly matched by a protostyle on the 

 anterolingual portion of the tooth, with 

 the cingulum almost but not quite contin- 

 uous around the inner margin of the pro- 

 tocone. M^ in this material, though lack- 

 ing a mesostyle, corresponds closely to that 

 in the type of Jepsenia mantiensis. It is 

 possible that the two molars, which were 

 found close together, belong to the same 

 individual and may represent a type dis- 

 tinct from the foregoing. 



Several isolated jaw fragments with 

 single molars, one with Mo and part of 



Figure 18. — Jepsenia mantiejisis 

 Gazin: Right maxillary por- 

 tion with M'-M3 (U.S.N.M. 

 No. 15747), type specimen, 

 lateral and occlusal views, X3, 

 Dragon Paleocene, Utah. 



Ml, and several with portions or all of Mo 

 and Ma, are presumed to represent Jep- 

 senia mantiensis. The lower teeth in gen- 

 eral show a distinct paraconid in a lin- 

 gual position and a basined talonid with 

 a strong hypoconid, a moderate entoconid, 



and a weak hypoconulid which is the dorsal termination of a slight pos- 

 terior cingulum rising from the posteroexternal portion of the tooth. 

 The trigonid portion is not greatly different from that in L. disjunctus, 

 but with less acute cusps. The entoconid on the heel of Mi and of 

 Ma is less developed, and the small cuspule anterior to the entoconid 

 is less evident than in Litaletes. M3 is about the size of that in 

 Ellifsodon? stemhergi but is narrower and shows a distinct para- 

 conid, not, however, so distinct as in E. shepherdi. Mg in E.f stem- 

 hergi is distinctly wider than in the material refeiTed to Jepsenia 

 mantiensis but the talonid basin is relatively smaller. 



Table 4. — Measurements {in millimeters) of tipper teeth of Jepsenia mantiensis 



1 Greatest transverse diameter. 



