14 PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM vol. 9i 



the crest extending forward from the entoconid to the metaconid, 

 and the crest forward from, the hypoconid joins the posterior wall 

 of the trigonid at a point distinctly more external than in either of 

 the above genera. The talonid basin is well excavated and in M3 

 is not so restricted by the flexure of the outer wall anterior to the 

 hypoconid as in Elpidoj)horus patrattis. The hypoconulid in 

 M2, though weak, is placed ahnost as close to the entoconid as in the 

 Crazy Mountain forms. It may be further noted that the two 

 molars do not show evidence of an external cingulum such as exists 

 in Elpidophorus material. 



The anteroposterior diameter of M3 in No. 16180 is 3.5 mm. The 

 transverse diameters of Mo and M3 are 2.3 and 2.0 mm., respectively. 



This new form is possibly closest to the Elpidophorus line but 

 differs most notably in the less accentuated elevation of the inner 

 cusps and in the more widely basined talonids. The differences from 

 Eudaemonema that are significant, though not striking, in determin- 

 ing the relationship of this form lie principally in the position of 

 the paraconid and in the distinctly closed talonid basins. The lateral 

 position of the crest joining the hypoconid with the trigonid wall 

 is distinctive with respect to both. 



Specimen No. 15719, which includes an incomplete lower molar, 

 earlier described (Gazin, 1939b, p. 276) as belonging possibly to a 

 primate, closely resembles M2 in the above described type, so that 

 in the absence of additional material demonstrating more certainly 

 the presence of a primate in the fauna this specimen is referred to 

 Dracontolestes aphantus. 



Mixodectid (a), genus and species undetermined 



A. jaw fragment, No. 16220, with a single molar is seen to rep- 

 resent a second mixodectid type of insectivore in the Dragon fauna. 

 The tooth is almost as large as in Eudaemonema cuspidata and appar- 

 ently a little larger than in Elpidophorus rmnor. The protoconid 

 and metaconid are broken, and although the inner of the two may 

 possibly have been the larger, in the talonid the entoconid is not 

 higher than the hypoconid, suggesting EudaemoTiema rather than 

 Elpidophonis, and the talonid basin opens internal!}^ with almost, 

 but not quite, as broad an opening as in specimens of Eudaemonc ma. 

 The tooth al^o lacks the distinct external cingulum seen in material 

 of Elpidophorus. However, the paraconid is markedly internal in 

 position, and not so low or projecting so forward as in Eudo£mo- 

 nema cuspidata. The paraconid is; placed somewhat as appears 

 to be the case in M2 of Elpidophorus minor. The tooth, though a 

 little shorter, is relatively wider than in Eudaemonema cuspidata., 

 suggesting Elpidophorus in this respect, but is slightly lower crowned 

 than in either. It may be further noted that the hypoconulid, rising 



