PLEISTOCENE VERTEBRATES FROM CUMBERLAND CAVE 15 



Order CARNIVORA 

 Family CANIDAE 



CANrS ABMBRUSTEHIGIdley* 



Figures 2-10 



The type of this species is a portion of a left lower jaw, U.S.N.M. 

 no. 7662, containing teeth, P4 to Ma, and the alveolus for M3 (fig. 6a 

 and b). Two paratypes were designated: A portion of a right lower 

 jaw with teeth, Pa to Mj, U.S.N.M. no. 7661 (fig. 7a and 6), and por- 

 tions of the right and left lower jaws of another individual, U.S.N.M. 

 no. 7482, containing teeth, which include carnassials of both sides and 

 M2 and the posterior half of P4 of the left side. 



The material in the National Museum representing this species 

 consists of a number of well-preserved specimens (figs. 2-10), includ- 

 ing nine skull portions of which five are more than half complete. 

 There are also 17 lower jaws and jaw portions, one nearly complete 

 fore limb and foot, and several unassociated limb bones and vertebrae. 

 Most of this material was collected after Gidley published his descrip- 

 tion of this form. 



The chief characters given by Gidley to distinguish Canis arm- 

 brusteri are as follows: 



Size slightly less than that of C. occidentalis, as that species has been defined by 

 Miller [1912, p. 2], but tooth characters indicate an animal quite distinct from 

 any of the true wolves. Its principal differences are seen in the greater relative 

 depth of jaw, smaller canine, more simple p2 and ps, the presence of a posterior basal 

 tubercle on p4, and in the relatively larger heel of the carnassial. The paraconid 

 also is less expanded at base, with more perpendicular anterior face. The meta- 

 conid is larger and higher placed, while the protoconid is less broad and full, as 

 seen from the inner side. The carnassials as a whole suggest those of a jackal, fox, 

 or coyote rather than those of a wolf. * * * 



In the newer material is a portion of a lower jaw associated with a 

 broken and crushed skull, U.S.N.M. no. 11881, in which most of the 

 cheek teeth are preserved. The very close resemblance of the lower 

 teeth in this specimen (fig. 8) \\dth the corresponduig ones of the type 

 make its refererice to C. armbrusteri logical. However, the depth of 

 the ramus in no. 1 1881 is not so great. By comparison with no. 1 1881, 

 other skull portions in the collection are referred to this species. 



Considerable uidividual variation exists hi the series of canid spec- 

 imens, sufficient to suggest the recognition of more than one distinct 

 species were only the extremes represented. However, the degree of 

 variation, particularly in size and proportions of skull and teeth, is 

 not greater than that which was observed in a series of 35 Recent 

 canid skulls in the collections of the Biological Survey from Gila Na- 

 tional Forest in New Mexico. 



« Gidley, 1913b, pp. 98-102. 



