NO. 2025. CAMELS OF THE FOSSIL QENU8 CAMEL0P8— HAY. 269' 



to the line between townships 4 and 5 north, range 66 west. 

 The teeth were discovered at a depth of 35 feet from the surface. 

 The catalogue number is 870. 



The most important of the specimens above mentioned are, of 

 course, those constituting the type of Cragin's Auchenia Jiuerfanensis. 



It may be as well, first of all, to establish, if possible, the relation- 

 ships of Leidy's Camelops Tcansanus, Leidy's Auchenia Tiesterna (as 

 represented b}^ Merriam's specimens), and Cragin's Auchenia Jiuer- 

 fanensis. That all belong to the same genus there seems to be little 

 reason to doubt. Comparisons between Camelops Icansanus and 

 Merriam's specimens are limited to the anterior half of the premaxilla, 

 the anterior extremity of the maxilla, the last incisor, and a part of 

 the socket for the canine. Merriam ^ writes that compared with 

 Leidy's type the anterior end of the rostral region of the Rancho 

 La Brea skulls shows little to distinguish it, the general proportions 

 of the elements present and the location of the teeth bemg nearly 

 the same. However, it seems to the writer that Merriam's drawing, 

 figure 5, shows that the premaxilla has almost exactly the form and 

 proportions of that of the lama. At the point of the alveolar border 

 where the maxillo-premaxillary suture is encountered, the premaxilla 

 begins to narrow as it passes backward. In the type of Camelops 

 Icansanus the bone continues to widen backward as far as it is pre- 

 served. Leidy's figure appears to show also that the whole alveolar 

 border in front of the canine was more strongly sigmoid than in the 

 specimens from Rancho La Brea. Leidy himself stated that the 

 premaxilla is of very much more robust proportions than in the lama 

 or the camel. It seems to me that Merriam has done right in not 

 identifying his specimens as Camelops Icansanus. 



It is still more certain that the type of Camelops Jiuerfanensis is 

 different from both C. Icansanus and C. Jiesternus. Plate 25, figure 2, 

 represents an exterior view of the left premaxilla of the Huerfano 

 specimen and Plate 25, figure 3, the inner surface of the same bone; 

 while figure 4 of the same plate presents a view of the maxillary 

 border. That part which was m front of the exit of the incisor is 

 wantmg. It is evident that the maxilla extended forward on the 

 alveolar border nearly to the incisor tooth. Just below, behind, and 

 outside of the bottom of the socket for the incisor there is a great 

 thickening of the premaxilla. On this thickening, mesiad of the line 

 of suture, there is a concave surface which is taken to be a part of the 

 wall of the socket for the canine. The presence of the canine here 

 furnishes the reason for the thickening of the premaxilla at this 

 place. If this conclusion is correct, the canine must have emerged 

 immediately behind the incisor just as it does in the Bactrian camel. 



»Univ. California Publ., Geol., vol. 7, p. 318. 



