276 PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM. vol. 46. 



the Texan specimen belongs with neither C. Tiesternus nor C. 

 Tiuerfanensis. 



4. It is impossible at present to decide the status of Megalomeryx 

 niohrarensis Leidy. The decision must await new discoveries. 



5. The writer accepts, therefore, as species of Camelops to be 

 carried on the rolls, until further knowledge is obtained, C. Icansa^ 

 nus, C. calif ornicus, C. liesternus, C. vitakerianus, C. niohrarensis, C. 

 macrocephalus, and C. huerfanensis , the latter to include provisionally 

 C. sulcatus (Cope) and the Texan mandible referred by Cope to C. 

 liesternus. 



Leidy and Cragin referred to the genus Auclienia the species men- 

 tioned in this paper. Wortman distinguished the two genera on the 

 presence of a prominent lamina, or style, at the anterior outer angle 

 of the two hinder lower molars of Auclienia, a structure absent from 

 the same teeth of the species of Camelops. Merriam accepts this 

 separation. It seems to the present writer that there arc various 

 other characters which are of perhaps genera importance. It is 

 evident that the species of Camelops, so far at least as represented 

 by C. liesternus, had skuUs relatively longer and narrower than those 

 of Auchenia. In the latter the width at the rear of the orbits is 

 equal to about 54 per cent of the length from the front of the fora- 

 men magnum; while, according to Merriam's illustrations and meas- 

 urements, the corresponding width in Camelops equals only about 

 45 per cent of the corresponding length. There is an important 

 difference in the upper molars. In Auclienia the length of the grmd- 

 ing surface is nearly equal to the width of the tooth measured at 

 the base; that is, when these molars are well worn down the grind- 

 ing face is nearly square. In Camelops the teeth are relatively long 

 antero-posteriorly. In Camelops the lower incisors are less curved 

 than in Auchenia and directed more strongly forward; that is, they 

 are more procumbent. In Auclienia the nasals are strongly expanded 

 at the hinder end; in Camelops they are narrow posteriorly. In 

 Auclienia the lachrymal vacuity is crowded outward against the 

 mner border of the lachrymal, while in Camelops the vacuity hardly 

 or not at all comes into contact with the lachrymal. In Camelops 

 there is fossa in the upper border of the maxilla; in Auclienia there 

 is none. 



