CAMELS OF THE FOSSIL GENUS CAM FLOPS— HAY. 



275 



The following are the measurements of the fourth premolar and the 

 molars of the type of Canielops Imerfanensis (fig. 1) and of teeth of 

 No. 5315, from Minidoka. Merriam's measurements of the lower 

 teeth of his specimen No. 20040, referred to C. hestemus, are added in 

 the third column ; and in the fourth the measurements given by Cope 

 for his Texas specimen. In C. liuerfanensis the fourth premolar and 

 first molar are present in the right ramus, while in the left ramus the 

 premolar is represented by the socket only. 



Measurements of lower premolars and molars. 



Teeth measured. 



Huerfano 

 specimen. 



Length of lower teeth, pm.i to m.3, inclusive 



Length of molar series 



Pm.4, height 



length 



width 



M.i, height 



length 



width 



M.2, height 



length 



width 



M.3, height 



length 



width 



Minidolia 

 specimen. 



143 

 US 



25 



23 



14 



30 ± 



27 



17 



45 



40 



20 



No. 20040 



Univ., 



Cal. 



Cope's 



Texas 

 specimen. 



It will be observed that the teeth of the Minidoka specimen are 

 distinctly smaller than those of the type of C. huerfanensis. As 

 regards the premolar and the first two molars, the shortness along 

 the grinding surface may be partly explained by their being more 

 worn; but this explanation does not apply to the last molar. More- 

 over, the teeth are all narrower. It may be that the individuals 

 which bore these teeth differed considerably in size; and this dif- 

 ference in size may have been due to difference of sex. 



The conclusions reached by the writer may be put into the fol- 

 lowing form : 



1. Camelops Jcansanus is known from the type only and is a spe- 

 cies distinct both from C. hestemus, as represented by Merriam's 

 specimens, and from C. liuerfanensis. 



2. C. Tiesternus is a species distinct from C. liuerfanensis Cragin. 



3. Cope's Texan specimen, referred to C. hestemus, can not be 

 determined as yet with certainty. It probably belongs to C. huer- 

 fanensis, as does probably C. sulcatus Cope. Merriam is inclined to 

 refer the Texan specimen to C. hestemus, as represented by the Cali- 

 fornia specimens; but it is to be noted that in the latter the line of 

 the lower cheek teeth is considerably shorter than the distance from 

 the front of the fourth premolar to the incisive border, while in Cope's 

 specimen the tooth line is considerably longer than the jaw, in front 

 of the premolar. This would appear to furnish some indication that 



