46 BULLETIN 171, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM 



SPILOGALE MARYLANDENSIS Gidley and Gazin • 



Figure 25 



Type.— Right ramus of mandible (fig. 25), U.S.N.M. no. 12048, 

 with canine and P3 to Mi preserved. 



Specific characters. — Mandible about the size of that in Spilogale 

 putorius. Symphysis abrupt and inferior margin of mandible less 

 convex longitudinally. Canine slender and long. Third and fourth 

 premolars and molar slender and not overlapping. P3 small. Basal 

 portion of P* nearly oval in cross section as seen in dorsal view. 

 Trigonid of Mi relatively short and narrow. Metaconid moderately 

 well developed but not so distinctly separated from protoconid as in 



FiGunE 25. — Spilogale marytandensis Oidley and Gazin: Right ramus of mandible, type specimen 

 (U.S.N.M. no. 12048), lateral and occlusal views. X IH- Cumberland Cave Pleistocene, Maryland. 



S. putorius. Buccal surface of talonid not oft'set inwardly to so great 

 an extent as in living species. 



Comparison. — Spilogale marylandensis compares favorably in size 

 and depth of jaw with female specimens of S. putorius. However, 

 the symphysis of the mandible is somewhat more abrupt than in either 

 male or female specimens and projects downward to a noticeable extent 

 giving the lower margin of the ramus a less convex and more irregular 

 longitudinal profile. The premolars are narrower and even less 

 crowded than is common in the living species. The trigonid of Mi 

 is slightly shorter and narrower than in either S. putorius or S. in- 

 terrupta, and the external wall of the heel is not oft'set inward so 

 abruptly from that of the trigonid as in the living species. Further- 

 more, the metaconid of Mi is more solidly united with the protoconid; 

 however, this cusp is not reduced as in Brachyprotoma. 



Spilogale marylandensis does not differ greatly in size from Brachy- 

 protoma pristina but has smaller, more slender premolars and a larger 

 carnassial. Other characters separating the two forms are those which 

 distinguish Brachyprotoma from Spilogale, such as the crowding or 

 overlapping of the premolars and smaller size of heel and more reduced 

 metaconid of the lower carnassial. 



• Gidley and Gazin, 1933, pp. 351-352, fig. 4. 



