No. 2324. PECCARIES FROM CUMBERLAND CAVE—GIDLEY. 



669 



LOWER JAW MEASUREMENTS. 



Type 



(male) 



No. 8146. 



Paratype 

 (female) 

 No. 8200. 



Paratype 

 (female) 

 No. 8153. 



Type 



(male) 



No. 8148. 



Length of diastema behind canine (straight line) . . . 



Length of diastema between c and i^ 



Length of symphysis in front (in straight line) 



Depth of symphysis in median line 



Dep th of symphysis at mental foramen. . . w 



Depth of lower jaw at m' 



Depth of lower jaw at condyle 



Depth of lower jaw at coronoid process 



Width between alveoli of lower canines 



Total length of lower jaw, condyle, to tip of incisors 



76.0? 



4.0 



100.0 



31.0 



48.0 

 Broken. 

 Broken. 

 Broken. 



20.0 

 Broken. 



9. 

 100. 



30. 



45. 



52. 



90. 

 115. 



22. 

 288. 



8.3.0 

 5.5 



88.5 

 35. 07 



49.0 

 92.0 



107.0 

 20.0 



280.0 



SKULL MEASUREMENTS. 



Length of diastema behind canine 



Length of diastema between c and i^ 



Distance across 1st pair of molars 



Width of palate between second molars 



Width of palate between second premolars 



Width of palate just anterior to p 2 



Width of palate between canines 



Total basal length measiired from condylar notch 



Extreme length of skull 



Post-border of orbit to post-border of inion 



Anteroposterior diameter of orbit (nearly circular) 



Anterior border of orbit to extreme end of premaxillary . 



Depth of skull at condyles 



Depth of skull at glenoid fossa 



Greatest breadth of zygomatic expansion below orbit 



Greatest width of skull across zygomas 



Width of face at middle of orbits 



Width of face at postorbital processes 



Width of face above infraorbital foramen 



60.0 

 2L5 

 60.5 

 21.0 

 28.0 

 36.0 

 45.0 



325.0? 



380. 0? 



115.0 

 40.0 



235.0? 

 Broken. 



120. 0? 

 78.0 



206.0 



120.0 



132.0 

 45.0? 



In the above table, question marks indicate the exact measurements could not be taken but could be 

 stimated within a reasonable degree of accuracy. 



There seems to be exhibited a rather wide degree of variations in 

 certain skull and dental characters in this material from the Cum- 

 berland cave, which suggests there are still other species represented. 

 But I have been unable to find any consistent group of well marked 

 dilFerences which at present appear to warrant the recognition of 

 more species than I have here described. In fact, in view of the 

 great degree of variability, which variability my present knowledge 

 of these forms seems not sufficient to properly interpret, it is with 

 some hesitancy that I propose a distinct species even for the speci- 

 mens just described as P. intermedins. However, it appears hardly 

 probable that such a very considerable difference in relative propor- 

 tions of dentition and skull could exist within a single species. It is 

 possible also that, as I have already intimated, I have allowed too 

 much for " individual variation " in the material I am assigning tem- 

 porarily to P. cumherlandensls. For example, in comparing the 

 skulls of this collection I find a wide variation in zygomatic de- 

 velopment (pis. 54, 55). Another species is possibly indicated by a 

 skidl (No.8003,U.S.N.M.) from a cave deposit unearthed in develop- 

 ing a quarry on the west bank of the Green Brier, near Renick, West 

 Virginia (figs. 7-9). This skull, which is evidently that of a female, 

 was discovered, strangely enough, about the same time as the Cum- 



